Andrus correspondence and documents on wilderness issues

CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Chris Johnson
3964 Yorktown Way
Boise, ID 83706
Dear Mr. Johnson:
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720
{2081 334-2 1 00
December 29, 1989
Thank you for your recent letter and for sending me
your concerns about the wilderness bill that Senator James
McClure and I drafted.
One thing I learned when I was Secretary of the
Department of the Interior is the need to work with people
of many viewpoints when addressing issues that concern the
preservation or use of natural resources. Because both of
us recognize that need, Senator McClure and I tried to find
a middle ground on the wilderness issue. Any compromise
requires give and take, and it is never easy. However, we
both believe that to compromise now is better than to leave
the question of the roadless areas to lengthy and expensive
litigation--litigation that most likely will make no one
happy in the end.
Many Idahoans like you are concerned about or directly
oppose the latest amendments to the wilderness bill. These
changes were made in order for the bill to pass the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Some changes were
ones Senator McClure and I agreed to long ago. Others were
proposed by other senators.
The "release language" that deals with lands not
classified as wilderness is an updated version of general
release language found in wilderness bills. It ties the
review of these currently roadless areas to the forest
planning process where it should be. The water rights
language was changed slightly to omit the five wilderness
areas previously classified in Idaho. The language dealing
December 29, 1989
Page Two
with roads was a compromise between Senators ~1cClure and
Dale Bumpers of Arkansas. I share your concerns about the
process set out in identifying roads that exist in
wilderness areas. I prefer wilderness boundaries,
including "cherrystems" if necessary, to be included in the
legislation and not left to some U.S. Forest Service
official to draw at a later date.
If we are to resolve the wilderness issue in Idaho, I
believe this legislation is the best vehicle to use
although I do not hold out much hope for its passage. If
you or any other person or group desires a different
solution, I urge you to draft your own bill and submit it
to the Congress. I stand ready to comment upon, make
suggestions on or oppose your efforts--whichever will do
the most good.
With best regards,
CDA:abl
a/c/f iw
Ll228.08
y;9!;;2/3;)3
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
December 10, 1989
Governor Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID
Dear Governor Andrus,
lffi~(Gj~~w~~
[)EC 111989
lW
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
tl........ \)\.... ..... ,_..,
".'l:LJI ""to."-\"'''"" vJ.-,
I would like to express my concerns with Senator McClure's S371 bill soon to
be before the US Senate. I am aware that you were involved in developing the
bill with Mr. McClure, and that you consider the agreement you reached a
reasonable compromise.
I must admit that I did not share that opinion, feeling that the thing being
compromised was Idaho's ecological integrity. Initially aware of only the
acreage numbers, I was concerned that so many pristine areas would be opened
to consumptive use while so few were to be protected.
Additional concerns continued to develop as the bill was finalized and the
particulars became public knowledge. Because of the timing of the release of
the most disturbing provisions, and because of their nature, I came away with
the distinct impression that Mr. McClure was weakening the protective features
you and he had agreed to. I'll point out a few of the provisions that deeply
concern me, and hope that you can comment on whether you agreed to them as
they are presently written and are willing to accept their implications. Your
backround shows strong support for so many of the areas this bill so deeply
threatens.
• The roads provision of S371 uses a definition of road which is
unrealistically inclusive. It calls for a seven year review process, with the
Forest Service making the final decision on which "x-oads" are included.
I am aware that you did not want to include roads in wilderness areas. I can
accept this, even though most exioting wilderness areas had roads at one time
which were either abandoned or closed. Allowing illegal tracking or driving to
cause an area to be removed from wilderness consideration is unrealistic,
though. I can fox-esee a scenario where anyone with anti-wilderness feelings
can for the next seven years reduce wilderness boundaries by illegally
tracking the land. I remind you of the strong political influences the Forest
Service is subject to, especially from Mr. McClure. He will need only one
reelection to exert his influence for the duration of the review. Illegally
tracked areas, and long abandoned roads returning to wild, are more
appropriately included in wilderness areas than allowed to segment them and
threaten the ecological preservation the wilderness designation represents.
• Language in S371 specifically denies federal water rights to the
wilderness this bill creates.
Much of the wilderness proposed by this bill is at high elevation. Locations
at stream headwaters l!lhould preclude practical water diversion, which would be
ecologically disastrous. Impact on newly created wilderness would likely be
minimal.
Significant impact could occur on existing wilderness areas. Since water
rights are not typically mentioned in wilderness legislation, much of the
existing wilderness system is threatened, by this bill, with being dewatered.
Wilderness is defined in federal legislation establishing the wilderness
system as "untrammeled by man". Yet this bill supports the most grave
imaginable threat to ecological integrity of the until now protected areas. No
wilderness bill, no matter how much land it proposes to preserve, should be
considered if it opens previously protected areas to such degradation.
• The "rollins release" prov1S1ons of S371 seem to seal the fate of
all roadless areas not preserved in this Forest Management Act. The
traditional public participation in Forest Service planning, mandated by the
1976 Forest Management Act, would be inhibited by precluding wilderness
consideration for the majority of the state's forested roadless areas.
Instead of having the voice in public policy that present law requires, all US
citizens will be forced to subsidize the destruction of most of Idaho's
remaining wild forests. These are mostly those further away places most
valuable to those seeking an unaltered environment and least practical to
harvest. As many recent studies have shown, local economies are better served
even in the short term by preserving ecological integrity than by harnessing
it. Consumptive use in these areas would represent mortgaging Idaho's future
for the short term gain of a conscienceless few. Yet this bill forces just
this destructive practice.
Idaho has a more intact environment, and more potential for intact
preservation than anywhere else in the country, possibly more than anywhere
else. Nothing could better preserve Idaho's economy than preserving it's
ecology. I know this since I am an environmental professional happily settled
in Idaho after seeing a few different areas of this country. I envy Idaho
natives, who have not had to witness the degradation and insults to
environmental integrity so common in other developed areas, most of which had
much less to offer in the first place. I am honored to be employed in
preserving the environmental integrity of this great state, and remain
dedicated to the task.
Of the propo•als including wilderness preservation in Idaho now active in
Congress, I remain staunchly behind the measure proposed by the one who's seen
Idaho's wilderness. I ask that if you feel differently, you please address the
concerns I've raised. I can not believe that a man of your experience and
integrity could support all the clauses in 8371. Please help make sure that if
that bill does come up, it does not receive your backing while including
provisions that you can not support.
Sincerely,
.>,.., s'-­Chris
Johnson
Governor Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
3, December, 1989
I am writing to ask that you consider modifying or withdrawing your
support of S 371- the Idaho Forest Management Act introduced into the
U.S. Senate by Senator McClure.
I understand the difficulty and compromise involved in this issue but
a couple of areas are of such overriding concern I felt I needed to
write.
The ''road'' provisions in the Act represent an attack on the concept
of Wilderness itself. It leaves the potential for a motorized
network across these wilderness areas. It seems hardly a balanced
approach to take the position that all government land should be
roaded with only a small fraction set aside for non motorized use.
I am concerned about Northern Idaho, since I live here• ~he area is
heavily logged <I am sure you have flown over itl and there is little
wilderness/non roaded land. Salmo Priest, Long Canyon, Scotchman
Peaks and Mallard-Larkins should be priority areas in this part of
the state with no significant wild areas and heavy development
pressure.
Thank you for your consideration.
u~~ij]~~\V/~[)J
DEC 111989
lw
Ol'f"ICI;< Clf <001/fi;fiNQit.
Sincerely
C;! ~-Jo/t,..A_____
Eugene Krebsbach
To: Cecil Andrus
From: Tom Jacob
Subject: S.371
Date: 12-14-89
Dear Mr. Governor,
I've recently learned some unsettling things regarding S.371 which I would
like to bring to your attention. Perhaps you'll advise me if my information
is incorrect or my understanding incomplete. These points are:
a) "wilderness" water rights may be compromised
b) roads/travel-routes (even if ill-defined) cannot be included in or
encompassed by "wilderness", and a 7-year period will be granted for
road review/boundary change
c) "rolling r•~l()ase" language precludes future "wilderness" consideration
of roadless lands in Idaho
My concern stems from knowledge that undiverted water is fundamental to any
natural ecosystem (i.e. "wilderness") and likely most critical to any area
not encompassing headwaters (such as a desert plateau). As closely as possible,
"wilderness" must be defined by ecosystems and not compromised by a few
primitive roads or trails. Additionally, our understanding of ecosystems is
rudimentary, so we should not preclude future "wilderness" addition. Nor
should permission to road undesignated areas be implied.
I realize that in an effort to cooperate with Jim McClure you've lent your
support to S.371. Many congressmen appear to view your support as a signal
to back the bill. Because S.371 has evolved in an unsatisfactory fashion,
skewed in favor of short-term interests, and sets poor precedent, I urge you
to withdraw support. The alternative House bill would appear more satisfactory.
As an aside I recently consulted
calculated that only 8.4 percent
management (including SNRA), and
that total to about 11 percent.
Thanks for your time.
1 ' I :(1
l_ ..J i J
'' 'i
[:L ,_ c} .~ .1"
IW
an Atlas and some Forest Service maps and
of Idaho land is presently under "wilderness"
the acreage proposed in S.371 would bring
Seems a tiny fraction of land for such furor.
Sincerely,
Tom Jacob
Box 31
Challis, Idaho 83226
December 9, 1989
2041 Blue Mt. Rd.
Saugerties, N.Y. 12477
Governor Cecil Andrus
State Capitol Bldg.
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
My husband and I own land in Teton County Idaho where we spend
much of our summers and will move to in a few years. We are
appalled at the Idaho Wilderness Bill you have proposed for
several resons:
1. In a state that has more than 9 million acres of unprotected
forest wildlands your bill would only protect 1.4 million acres
as wilderness and 800,000 as special management areas. This
National Forest land is not Idaho"s, it belongs to the whole
nation, and decisions you make on this land affect all Americans.
Your bill is a betrayal of the responsibility of your position.
2. Your definition of 2-rut tracks as roads, and withdrawl from
wilderness the areas containing 2-rut tracks without public
involvement was unfair. It violates section 3(e) of the
Wilderness Act and would set a destructive precedent for future
Wilderness legislation.
3. Your bill denies a federal reserved water right for
Wilderness.
4. The water rights prov1s1on is unnecessary and diminishes the
general protection offered under the Wilderness Act.
5. Your bill redefines ""release"' by declaring that the evaluation
of roadless lands done to determine their Wilderness suitability
isn"t subject to judicial review. Many areas proposed by
conservationists for Wilderness designation could be developed,
thus eliminating them from potential wilderness protection for
all time.
I am sorry that I do not have more respect for you and your
decision regarding Idaho wilderness. Your disregard for the
value of wilderness outrages me. I cannot understand the logic
of your bill. Even if you do not value wilderness for itself,
its value to science and for the lucrative tourist economy would
warrant a proposal providing much more protection.
Sincerely,
1-<',...-C<.. ~
Kate West
fiLu)t<l I~_t;~ ;: rm·-nt· I[ r ,~, ~,.~ . frh·· ru·'·", =
CEC 1:~n8'J
IW
OFF I C.;: OF GO \I' C:FtNOft
The Honor8ble Cec11 Andrus
Governor of ld8ho
StBtehouse
Boise, ID 63720
Deer Governor Andrus:
12/09/EI9
I em writing this letter to respectfully urge you to withdrew your
support for Senate Bill S. 371. Although I em not 8 resident of ldeho, my
femily end I frequently travel to ldeho for our summer vecetlons. Lest yeer
we visited the SelwBy-Bitteroot Wilderness, cemplng elong the Selwey
River. We love ldeho end the Netionel Forests In the Stele. Thet Is why we
ere so disturbed by your support for S. 371. This bill would destroy much of
whet we come to ldeho for including such things es solitude, fishing, hiking
end other releted ectivities. We do not come to see cleercuts, streems
choked with silt or treils destroyed by ORVs. S. 371 is e bed bl11 thet would
virtuelly ensure thet most of the Netion's netionel forest roedless erees In
Idaho wi11 be degreded in the future. Pleese do not support this bl11, 1t is
unfeir 1111 the wildlife thet requires these erees end to the citizens of this
country, the true owners of these forests.
Thenk you for your time ond interest.
evld Ze end Family
Frl ends of I deho: Ml dwest
13040 Tophith Rd.
Grass Leke, Ml 49240
517-651-7476
DEC :2 I 1980
(\N
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
!!~ ~.,.. ~ ~r4 A4t.- ~r··· ... 6o~,... ,.... !'(.._ ,;fj,. , .. ,
~ ~ a<..L ~ ~ ff:u ....... .
/ ~ ~ r -u ~ 1/m-<.- .z: . .,/ .n.. ?'£..
II
~ '',tt.,~~·
tfi.-~ ~~ ~ r~ t:vd/ ~ ~4:>
~'1~~~~~....1 ~~·
?/f!._7,5c_ w•4-l.d~w you.! s""if"or-T o.lf S. 3'?1. ~Q
k rv.:~.J rv•)r'o'1 vt'0(7#~5 ~ifro'1 3 (~ 0~ .i-S:
-/4. tJ;I.kr-~s Ac.-t fl"'t~f o-f-'-- -A.J-@' ~ ~
e..-.,.( f"<J~r~ ._,z.+._..- r~~+ -R,..-l.l);j,k,_~ H
'U.S..S 1$ a._~ ""SS e.-..,... 'Y"'« ...,..,.rf- k..,o..JS.:.. <!
t'-'•:S ,_(r<~y· ~ r<.J.(.:fJe. /~",1..,,_/.,_ •3 ~- ~
t..!'1'aC<-(I'f-,.{.~. 4cfwjl'ovt of ~ ("_,.7:"''"'-
~"~ ~ ~""'l~r-kt.M. Clo .... ~s ;c;. .,._ ~ ......_
trA.\I<s +-., 1 o v... C2, "'"' o t- s"'rf" ;:t. o "'
S~ni-t:;:c.-l ....f -0 ~'l(C r.. .. 5,'b.-.5 ~rt_ U1.1<\C,.r:- . ~
'\i;k. ?lt.:z.s"- orr5< ~<'s ··r~14"st'- p
(,lt.. +rt..,..~+- of' c...);lJle...-WIJ_> ~ \
~- 371. P-~e.~-~:..'z- ;~if:~~ "'o ~ I > u>- -ll
9£00Z ·:ra 'uol6U!IJSI!M ''M'N '1~;1.1'1$ 1119! Z tr1 'UO!ll!'J;)p;),:l iiJliPI!~etiO!fi"N zg),l: lj6!JA:dOJ
~-: .b~ ~ ~ o~-- = ~
~~ () .lJ ,...
lll-{i\ :i.oc
J ~- ,, ·. '--~=-,J ~ -~·N-~i' ~~ ..., - .fl. • < v ,...... lr:i:.\ _. • . < ,
~. ~· ~en . ,1 : o~· 2;;;- OQ ! l \ ~· :::l !!
vJ -< '"". i' !l. 0. ~ 7'··\fl -!:, . '
lJJ
-~-- Zlflil!£ .. !ML.£o__t,..,4*_s:t!.fct"f:1-. _ .f'.t2d•/15'tdN.S _11:-,.ro . L)(C.ti~zuJ,../J _7'~--
r: 11:fi _ 4:C4v/...8'12__L<liP_t/.._ldt':=tJtfL111_ h._>LJJ.cs 1 CII//L7t o,J .. s-r~l?.~S. __ -~-~7JM'7 rtf:?_.$ _ _§!._~~~~/fpy_U) __ 19F r~t:~o dow , _ 0/.L tu/)(?_Otl7 ...
__
0
___ "_fJf.7,._1L l<oJ'""~"7.rl_fh~ ___ fJ!?<-_{MIIf. _zs- ... co_-.Jf'oN.Joa~_:llR '27..ts_
,._,,.,_~ _ ~----- --+-~=.!..."'"---"'!-"-""-"u._~n~NL!::1.£. _L/ "1''-'-JorJ.. __ .IJ_c_/lc_es. ~~.a-e .... ~~s-.
". '.·' ~~- : <~- .' .. ~;:. '
,.._.
·--------~-..- f_L,_~:........!~!..S_ __ f!P.<_~,[.-~(f:L_(IJ{_;r_ _ ....:l:lf:f.~.-----~:H:~fo~IC'SJ .&7 /J~0StotJ ; __
•
. '.':·· I 'I -' _,,'_. ' -·
LJI-0 0..~.J.!~!}/Ir7~_ _( 2NLy. ___ /.__'f._":'l'-t..toN-J:E_US.f~ . · _
.. . M~f5S __ /1niO. _too,()()o_ITC._Il~~ 115 _"SI'Eu~ .. /f'1~~J-;~eM~-
·· :. ~!l:J'' _(ou-r o;: , . M_tu,o,J f/Jf'f2fl7£qeo /lCees){ _______ .....
__ i_ _ 'We: f[f/1, h~(!(L AwciWS , Wlff) ltWt<fLt<.M<f tf;_L!.,~¥7
/-h) /IJI}m( 7o 7_1-175 ;f!J0.->1t!V.f7tti•J I TC ~t7@iYhd_lh_J'__JVf_l"_wz-r
··- dO~- r·--
- . - - - --- -·. - ----- '"'- -. -·
"
- 1H7<> /JtC-L ts tct4H7 rc.ILLf Of'fOr-eo ;gy .sev. "•1Jf-.tl/ f BIVHJcey ,
;Tn/t) lhe1ze,..}f31JVIVJ /l)t.Jf /3eC1'1VK .f€N. /J1c C<.v(L£ . SHv()LO -·.- ) ·.;....-
: Nr!T ee /fuowea -to IIV7/J...O()uce ,4 8ilA. fi>(L t-hs j{!f'ft£ 13117 Mcttv~e
. -rm vrnuous P('..OV!St()(I)S CUNithtJz,f) vvrNfi,J l'rf2e /)f!.fC£1JftJf'- S£71/1\Jc;
f/-rvl) i,.JOUc.O /YZ t-hC.Ift-'( fJZ1tliMzN7tfL 10 f31/7f1 10 /fi+O ft:JJZ,t2tl1_
LJ1,vi)S 1/n!Q {fl!J'i~ ,:zOE.tUh.. UhitJS (u l{z_ {Ot..O;Zifi)O) 1\i(.v...) U42t'R.
. Wt tl) zf1...NiSS P ('..J)I'OS ltL , 5Pf c f Fwtu '( :
t'; ~.i::·~~}'r;.~V;ii~'>;;.;.'i,:'. (~:~<~"""~ .. .!-~ .i~-,:.._~,;:
(') ll-/'i .. s--raflct.Jt.i. f)ffuvl-tto,J or- r2oMs (''()ft,(i....f'rc.,LiL TC!/tci(S) 1D
l?>e [I(CLW~D ftZ.rJ"" WILOtr:NfS5 - Mc.Ct ... ue'l.- 1-1-14Ht.tt;lt7£C> 150
I I vvttus or- PfhZf-1-t.-t.~'-- -rVZACic.s i-Ii. cftN--r £ v£1\.J ?urce. -HE DDzSNI
i:::No..v w<-t'i.l1..i 11f''-Y /112£. fr,vl) fr.:opo~t.s 'To LHrvt:.. -?'lt~t cJ('~tJ urV7iL
um~ f) (2Qv,e<-vS 1/H.Sfi: (2rJ(t{)S - OV~f]... :::{ Yh.M2S ! "IH-75 ,sr-A
Pf2.o(IEt11CrJ 0(2 .. 1.-Jif...JJttLtVtSS -1!-h5 IS l..M/L 0(- HoMiwOt'J.:::. O·" ) . 371
J'r-N:) (t DfS'1rtL.. 1o Avail) I D'if\111 Fy trJ4 ftr'JO ?(!...at Z.C1tNC, M~A-S
'(f.tll'1 lh'? .. t f\.}f.'y1tOJV~(.... ~1Lt)U1.Ai1S5 Jew<?L~ (tJovJ ONL'( U,v(J(!..OTzC7'i.D
i)t. rf\(10 /h?.. . ~:11) 5v6Jii(1 1o VS[)(-1-fS" 0£V!Luf.vtf!IJII\'L WHiMS!)
(Ins V10L1tlH :;.ecrrorJ 3 {e) oF 11tr;. W1 LOilli\JeS'S ltCT!
(z) Jus1 1t5 &tv7t?uiL fr.a..M.f;ttl..cwc. 15 A-r17Mf1tN"i -ro Sluf
1tri.. CcJLorZ-rttlo v-)rLO£/jvess BILL
1 &,J. Me C~...u11...2. ll:rlf."vtfH
·1o DfN'( Tift tJtnUrZ..fn... Ft..ovJ of- <.AJI'rl Ut. '1/fiLOtJt:. c+ LJ;LIJE.t2."'is
ftf-9tS t3 '( DfNyrrv~ --{!h.. v.Jft1'il.'. .. fc...odiN4 :110 lift fh'Z.<iltS
'F-'iorf2.ttt.L..y f~e.>et!..veo wryrerz f2.t41t1S . Lrtt.t: Cowr.'.-t+tJo, tt.{oS1
IDit?W c.uc(..oetUJess A-c.fU..S H!.X ,rJ i-ieMVIJtrle(J_S fH1£J"6 , _frBo_v'e
(JoS'~t8L.e Coff?lfl,vMeN/ ofl- OlvU.S\6,0 Pi20Jects . Ir rs -&s-r -ro Df.PttJ'i.. (,.v1 LDeiZ_tvfSS lrP...ef'r5. NcJw fWO Lei tHe (0Uf21J
ozc!O£ 1H-1S coMft.£i ;swe , IrS 111ec( Prf...£ Do;Nt. tN l~+e wA-Ke.
Or ·(ltf2, /2ULIN4 6V Jvor:;e /(fniJf... ,,J "{t+e.. f£0Wtt'l... Ms1tUC(
(ouf-1 J/1.) CuLoo...m)o, vvit..I)L.lf'l. A-NO 111\'6\11\1::i rJiil) 5<>Mz >vt\'1£tL i To
5f'ZCIFICI'il..l.'f. D'irvj F'tQf/U\'1.. Ll+rv{)) wJ\1f('.__ IZICrf15 , wiH'1rtuZ.. 5f£N,oo_ c..;!Z...
JLhvic.Jr'L fo o'llttrl. et.:;l-(1<';) DzNili:S TI-lt 0\-c( -(1-f,rr ,rJ /Vlf'rf',},_l AA'i.A<;)
'KIP/\1'~11\N fi{/_4..AS 1+1\-Vl. ftNjl IZtC.I{1 10 £Xi~( I
()) ~Itt (Lt(..'l.(l(<){. li+rJ t;VA't\( V\.1 <lU<.-1) /'ctAOW tN'JPf rN7v 1-\"u f2.eMI'tl.-JirJ~
VN i\'iS\C..J.'r1'i.l) ~J<~ .. Oe11.tJe$'S <)1 <.1)')1 A7vt) P..U MLe<; S f\11_efiS W 111-tDt.rT
.,i-JOICIA-L.. 12.evlev..J! 1H-rs JS..f\13.(v!U.:) IWO NU\A"1~S _rft~ Tft-JI-rs of _
______ ~:::.:"" ,~,,~. ~0-~=~~------~cc_~ss_:_;o_ _ :r_~_£ ___ ~~;:$ . ~~~~ _
-------- T----.- --·- __. ./ ..0 >-. _-err __ c _' :l'I<.tno--.l~,-- SJi.l\/7 _l'rU-'f-- .. _,..... _,.,_, " __ _
__ ___ _ .. _ lt:!lft:_ r-.J~·z...o _____ tv-rt __ \).S'P."l_::E5 ___~ o ___ {'!1"·t~~ _:-ro _ t-,J£eA_ __ ~o_ r.JF,..,..e. ----~
i'l ~ "\\ ,.
_______ _j(_l?,__\)_1.;: £ S_ , _ --~ __ J~e_l£Ast!_~~8:JJ_L_Q\!!?,_§~.::'g_I'J'7L«,..) __ I_S -~1'\-:'J !!Y_t:; .. ______ _
II
i i
________________ )lrJc __ f"'tc.T?-_e ____ L>,)I_<::-_~~ss __ ..!L_~ee~_a?-_E~j.l?g_oe-o __ Jt-~_____!_DAH<:> ________ .
I!
------------~p::\lf.(2.... ANO_Jf _C<J _A./}_i_I\II!_C?_S._o_!d_'?,-__ ejcf LoJ1:t .)£. _,_!d!1~e.:fY l- __ Pl7,_fr<::n<::.E.S -~ .
--- __ _j~_f:'l~ _P.>oz __ _s-1_t2._l_c,~---~'!\o'l __..n :tt.s_~Jl-'-. --------------------------------------
_________ )L_, DtrH 'q_ _1-_cJfZ_ge.tJi_L,_Y-~- ------···---------------- --------
: i
i' li --------ll, ,--- . -- --·-- . - -------------------------- ·-----------------------~--------
_____________ :L.f'l_C_()_t-)_i_IS, ___ _I"::_~·-N~ frY.)~afPo_W_\!-OSJ~'i.SS __ ~':IwJ:if...;_~--<;.;~i<-·_J ___ !i T ----------r·:=~~~-~~::;~~:~:~::D ~~:;:;;~r;a. ::_~11~=-~
I------WPl'rrL~. _ riA. or Lf__ R.e ~rg~__~_ e.l.o;.______A:t,!Q ___. ,.yl~.,_~,.-_~ !J:J___Q_~l\6L,.aNW-Et,~Jtf!~lL.,_l_D_E!::_t-&_~_
·-------w(_QNO~'lL-- ---------- -------------- ------------------------ ------------------------·---
________________ ! ~-'-'~-~-- -~'i: __ Nv"1_ fL,lS11S'15 __ ~~~-L.OYL .. .I Dl'\-t-lo. MD .. :H:>'W'z __ V.IS'1'1W __ :(tfi __ ~1itJ_i,. __
I' - '
I j
-------- .. liA _ t..JJ1>16~L o~ .111'1A.'L':._, ___ }jJ(..P_VS __ Gt_'1 _ fl__!ioo 0 ___ WI L.O'UW~:!:LS!l.t.___~ cluQ_
-----i-fW.u2.«t. ~s:L Vo:tCDowr-) __ s:,3 7::1 -:IT_ Do.tstJ~_'29.-r.ttr._Ju6L __ __ __
• ___ __.. f ---~&1 l6u. &1?...1;)~ )- -------------- -- - ·- - ·- -- . - - - -· -- ----- - .. - --- ------- --- ------------
-~~1 ~~-t~:<AC u.,,u~ _ _ ~--- _ . . _
_ _ . \L __ vJ,X:;evJ,kt~ Cowf..kou 8:5V y .
I,
'
0o~ewrL ltt•\ ~~17
\W
\ ~-<u-r ~~\\ -\1> ~.~~~ ~~~-\~rt..~ J ~ \~~~ ~~v.\ Mw.~~eA
~v~ 1 7 · "71 \ ·
• \V..e- 1\-erJ_ ~u~ :c.:O"l" ;oJ -\-\u ~·~\ \ ·,~ tR.. -\,o 'l>t_,J,_. \\ \1.1~ ..\\-~
~.f.~-t-W-;0 ._) 1 t,O.I \ I \)JI).k 1).>1~ w.U St. ~tJ,~ ~'-"'~ >'t~t.t:..J I~ ;...;~o..J JJ
o~«. iUtU.,!~J. v.{,~. ~ I<~• .V, w-~ k O.oJ. ~\--o\<\J.. 'c.<. J..tl;.,j M (..OIJ'
~~.-U o.J. ~;.J\~,.,,J ~ D)o\lu...l~t~\ o.~>l~ ~ ~~ \Ar,.t. .
• .f\ \.(ch~ t.t<,t.Llt.~ \.lii).~L ~.~\-,.~ k w.\elu.'IJt<;S ·~ t44w\..tJ.. y~\.t_t-l,.
~ \111,\c.l.Lt-~o~<--S~ \-.~wv..\.u..<, \ttJt.\:\\~ o.U.
' \~t- \N~.\.t, C. \oJ. »~~ ~~t. w.~lm,~~~ tlttl ~l.o\t.~~'" ~ l * '-"·~oJ
t..co..~ to t.~•cl.u. .~. .
' \V..e- ?.~,Jttt.,s l).oJ~ \..t~~~s J,o ~~(,t-1/t; ~,\rh4J(.~'i ch~,w ... ~·ot-l.
• ~col (Ol.~lkC, \,l,Jfha.,k-<:>'t-" w,\J.u...t't',~. 1\-\t.t.t., l).f.!; J.~ ev..ktJt,~lft,
00...\] "'"t e<~. k~ ~u,~t.Ji" s:C),.,·,\.~\~ W\crU ().t.Uv<, k. ~~!.\:,~,
'#~>.\..w_ O.t~oiA.lltS 1 ~o~- w.o\.ri.i~J t.u~ * \~~o~ l~e..-.
• ~ • Q... · 1.1\ 'J .VI il' ~~' 9 ~oo~ J.~~o~t>.\~.J (J • 1~l ~li'A \'v\.u l.rl.-
Governor Cec11 Hndrus
Stat er.ouse
boise. idaho 83720
D~~r· Governor ~ndrus,
[I()'/ .1
1 have beey-, a
Adm i y-, i strati c··n.
Ser,ator f'rlcCl ur~e
fan of yours for years, ever
1 am surprised that you
ldat1o FoY'est May-,agemer-.t Act.
si r,ce the gerw.edy
support tt1e S.37l
Our wilderness here in Idaho is in enough Jeopardy wi·th out
tur ... r-.ir-•g c•ver the cor-.trols tee the Fc•rest Service to mar ... k
boundaries for us. Also this bill is an attempt to re--deflne the
existing water-right law thus reducing the protect1on we now have
under the present law.
~)lease char-,ge vc•ur positic•r, C•Y• this bill. We lYJ ldano ·need
responsible leg1~lators who are not go1nq to turn our land and
our water-rights over to the highest bidaer. We onlv have so
much land left and that is go1nq fast~ .JUSt come to Ketcnum and
fir-rd Ctllt!!!!!!!!
S1 Yrcerel v yoLI"r"'S.
Frances P. Crosier
P.U. Box 2434
Ketchum, Idaho 83340
I!CJ '/ :, !
J(A}
Dear Governor Andrus,
'
.I
Box 393
Sun Valley, Idaho
83353
Nov. 19, 1989
I'm writing to you concerning the Idaho Wilderness Bill S371.
I'm very much in favor of wilderness designation for areas of
Idaho. The four million acre bill introduced by Representative
Kostmayer would protect a reasonable amount of wildlands.
S371 has some glaring faults:
1. The proposed acreage is much too small.
2. It has provisions to exempt roads in the area from wilderness
designation. What sort of wilderness will it be with roads
running through it? What sort of precedent will this set for
wilderness areas in the future?
3. It gives the Forest Service the authority to review the
boundaries in seven years and redraw them if it sees fit.
I don't want the Forest Service to be able to do that.
Please withdraw your support from this dreadful bill. Idaho
Wilderness deserves better protection than this. If we can't count
on our own governor, who can we count on?
Yours trulh ,
r~.-u.& {,deL;;~~
Sue Petersen
Governor Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
~~~~~~\E\1]
~O'J 29 i989
}W
OFFICI: OF aovEttNoR
November 23, 1989
Lisa D. Therrell
P.O. Box 104
Grangeville, ID 83530
I am writing to ask that you reconsider your support of s. 371, The Idaho
Forest Management Act. I respect that your efforts towards trying to negotiate
a compromise in order to resolve the issue of wilderness allocation in Idaho.
However, S. 371 is a dangerous precendent-setting piece of legislation. It
erodes the concept of wilderness established by the 1964 Wilderness Act. In
particular I urge that you withdraw your support of the road provision, and
the water right provision. Please help keep Wilderness WILD!
Sincerely,
~Ida ~J/1i1U_:/
Lisa D. Therrell
enclosure
Senator Bradley
u.s. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bradley:
November 23, 1989
Lisa D. Therrell
P.O. Box 104
Grangeville, ID 83530
I am writing in regards to Idaho wilderness legislation. I strongly urge
that you do NOT supportS. 371, and work to prevent its passage.
The Rocky Mountains are a magnificent portion of our national heritage. If
wilderness was to be preserved for the sole purpose of wildland recreation,
we may have enough wilderness already, though we would have to considerably
crowd folks together as more and more wildlands are lost. However there is a
much more important reason to designate wilderness. These wild places are
among the last vestiges of America primeval. We have drastically altered
entire ecosystems across this nation by farming, grazing, mining, logging,
urbanizing, dredging, damming etc ••• Of our precious remaining wild places
we need to seek to preserve these remnant ecosystems, where natural processes
can operate freely. Future generations will thank our foresight rather than
inheriting only the legacy of our greed and short term economic decision
making.
s. 371, the Idaho Forest Management Act, is a travesty to the All-American
tradition of wilderness. The bill ignores wilderness allocation on many
deserving wildlands. In fact, the bill only recommends 1 million acres for
wilderness designation, out of the current 9 million roadless acres. The
bill would give the Forest Service the authority to redraw wilderness
boundaries to exclude areas showing signs of "definable routes of travel".
S. 371 degrades the 1964 Wilderness Act by denying federal reserved water
right for wilderness. Please prevent S. 371 from going to the floor for a
vote. And should it reach the Senate floor, please offer amendments that
would restore the integrity of the wilderness concept, "where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man".
Take it from an Idahoan, four million acres IS NOT TOO MUCH!!!! (H.R. 2213)
The Forest Service may not advocate this much wilderness designation, however
their responsibility has been primarily toward the local timber industry and
not the American people as a whole. It is true that many Idahoans do not
support ANY wilderness designation, due to their vested interests in short
term economic gain. However wilderness designation is NOT what is hurting
the timber industry. The timber companies in the northwest are, in fact,
making record profits. Those employed by the timber industry are bt:!'1 ing,
however, from jobs lost due to mill mechanization, log exports, and more
"eff1Qient" logging systems. Desecrating our water, wildlife, native flora,
and scenery will only solve the problems of a few frustrated individuals.
America has seen gross changes in our economy since we became a nation.
Resource exploitation has been the way of the frontier. We need to be more
forward looking now, and adjust our economy, before every piece of the pie is
gobbled up by greed. Please help protect our stunning natural legacy.
Sincerely,
fi~ '--JI.e ._ ,_,;,
Lisa D. Therrell
cc: Senator James Me Clure
Congressman Richard Stallings
Governor Cecil Andrus
(;., v',. C u// ?/. fl, ci" 7/v.f
sn..re.- Cdf't't-e/ B ldt·
13~;-.r~J :J:: ~~o t 3 ?~o
II j2 r./ r/1
[~~UJJ~UW~fD)
NOV 30 1989
}W
OFFICE OF GOVERNOft
Lu e.- <>-.-<.. ir>-LV f f2v ~ ~ J& k<P t u__T-· LP e..
I
[l/fr7 ;e.~fc!> hr~u.-v/y ~ .Pf~r£,'., 7
fo LA.)! J.r r d.., I! ,,.a/ ro ~) o y _;e d&< 1 d> '-'
f..u/ / J tJ+ ~.I. f ~~ ~ c,.d?;. dr- ~ }"~4Y"
J'v p' 4#y ;- r r /).o,~-e; l' hi vr.i"r~J 1')., J 3 ?/
/har· L.v ~ ~ OVY 0 r' IJ .12..r;r. e./.. I' S', Ycl ~.
TrJc.....r/..>w., iS" /~?,...-)-~ /u ;e_~t{o_
p cJ-n.' -, J-e, rrc; }1 l:r ivtdw iry _ J? r-
Tfn'vl./ h~c~t-- of- :eck4.e:ir 0;/J
b ... ~ !y ~d tt..«j ~./ ltj.
~~~~~~~[OJ
NOV 30 1989
OFFICE OF GOVERNOft
?h'-"1A ,{ d(A
N CJT n:~ !.$.. ~;;,~~l;
S' It_.~ T -0 h. .... v...,~>
711'o No /,/e... 19v~
/1/l /;J' .1' /P;, f!-t't ir ~ - 113 'Is-
The Honorable Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
3964 Yorktown Way
Boise, Idaho 83706
November 28, 1989
I have written to a number U.S. Senators to express my objections to S. 371,
the Idaho Forest Management Act, introduced by Senator McClure. The bill is a
terrible compromise on behalf of those sectors which seek economic gain from
Idaho's priceless wildlands. In my letter I enumeratered several objection­able
provisions of S. 371, which I am sure you recognize:
The bill defines any parallel track as a road, and then cuts these
"roads" out of the wilderness it designates. Some of these roads are
the traces of the pioneers of long ago; others reflect the intrusion of
off-road-vehicles from which the land should be protected. I do not
pretend to understand the complexities surrounding the road provisions
in this bill.
The provision for mandated timber harvest for the Bonners Ferry Diotrict
and Panhandle National Forest has no place in any legislation to desig­nate
wilderness.
"Special Management Area" prov1s1ons are unnecesoary and would limit
public involvement in decision-making about public lands. I particu­larly
dislike provisions for off-road-vehicle use in the Smokies and the
possibility of accelerated timber harvest in some areas.
Grazing provisions would eliminate the Forest Service's discretion to
close off r-parian areas and otherwise protect the land from over­grazing.
This is another attempt to enhance the economic advantage for
a few by destroying Idaho's real treasure, our vast and wonderful
wildlands.
Inst~ed of McClure':! bi 11, ! ~dvocet·e support f';)r the Idaho Wi !derne5s Act,
H.R. 2213, introduced by Representative Kostmayer. It is not surprisin& to me
that the real ldaho Wilderness Act is proposed by an "Easterner". I am a
transplant myself, who came to Idaho to be close to the wilderness which is a
national treasure. l respectfully request your support for the real Idaho
Wilderness Act and disassociation with S. 371.
Sincerely,
c?(~D.~
LINDA D. HAGEDORN
~~@~~W~IDJ
NOV 281989
\W
OFFI<:a OF GOVERN()ft
JOHN l. RADIN
RUSSEll E. WEBB
Senator Bradley (NJ)
u.s. senate
LAW OFFICES
RADIN&WEBB
520 "D" STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 939
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 83405
December 1, 1989
Washington, D.c. 20510
Re: Idaho Wilderness Act--S.371
Dear Senator Bradley:
TElEPHONE 523-9808
AREA CODE 208
My name is John Radin. I have practiced law in Idaho Falls, Idaho,
for 13 years. As a citizen of Idaho and this Country, I must oppose
passage of s.371 because it does not include enough wilderness.
I feel that the issue of the amount of wilderness to be included is
not easy for us to decide because we cannot compare the alternatives
on a single basis. That is why it must be settled through a
political process. Although I will not dwell upon the economic
issues it seems clear to me that the amount of revenue received in
this state through the large areas of wilderness must certainly be
considered. Failure to increase these wilderness areas will have
a drastic longterm affect upon this income. But the real issue
concerning Idaho's Wilderness is only half economic, and my major
concern is for a resource which cannot be valued in economic terms.
In my opinion, the proper management of wild land is not to regiment
it, not to standardize its wilderness by opening it up to
development, but to maintain a vast diversity, a diversity great
enough for the full range of spirit from the great cities in the
east coast to the wild scenic beauty of the Idaho Forest Wilderness.
Because so little truly wild land is left in America, it is all the
more essential that we set this aside for future generations and for
the "wildness" in all of us.
I wish to report a few observations I've had observing people in the
Idaho Wilderness. I spent several days in the Middle Fork
Wilderness Area watching people. My purpose was to see if I could
judge in some way the good which comes to Americans from the Idaho's
Wilderness. Not the use: we measure that with traffic counters, but
the good.
. ' .- I;'
-.. -··
LW
Governor Cecil Andrus
Boise, ID
Dear Governor Andrus,
P.O. Box 230
Victor, ID 83455
October 28, 1989
I am writing to urge you to withdraw your support for the
Idaho Forest Management Act. I believe this bill (S. 371) is bad
for Idaho, by viture of its limited acreage. It is bad for the
nation's Wilderness System by viture of its special provisions
which will serve to weaken wilderness preservation.
In particular, the bill's definition of roads is very
dangerous. As a Forest Service employee, I see daily how roads
are being created by ORVs and jeeps. The language in the bill
now before the Senate may ultimately give anyone with a "muscle
wagon" the authority to go out and destroy the potential of lands
to become wilderness.
I am also disturbed by the bill's release language and its
denial of a federal reserved water right for wilderness.
The limited acreage is the most disturbing. I firmly believe
that in a very few years, all Idahoans and Americans will be
thankful for every single acre of wilderness that we preserve
today. In a world choked by over-population, pollution, and
global warming as forests disappear, our Idaho wilderness will be
treasures beyond compare.
Given the sudden rise of global environmental concern, your
courageous stance to preserve all 9 million roadless acres would
be admired and emulated throughout the world. I beg you to dare
to take this stance.
Sincerely,
Debra Patla
Nelle Tobias
Rt. Ill
McCall, Idaho 83638
Dear Nelle:
Thank you for your
~~\\t)( p.D~ I) I iCl
-~·~
letter regarding the wildern s ~
bill that Senator James McClure and I drafted. The U.S.
Senate will probably take action on the Idaho Forest
Management Act of 1989 before adjourning this winter.
One thing I learned when I was Secretary of the
Interior was~the need to work with people of many
viewpoints when addressing issues that concern the
protection or use of natural resources. That is why
Senator McClure and I tried to find a middle ground on
forest management issues, one that all Idahoans can live
with. Finding middle ground requires give and take, and it
is never easy. Unless we want our resource management
issues settled in federal courtrooms, however, we must find
a means to compromise the currently polarized positions.
Senator McClure and I brought our different viewpoints
to the bargaining table to try to find areas of agreement
on this issue. We did not expect wholehearted support from
all the interest groups because our solution could not
fully meet the wants of any of the different groups.
/
We both felt it would be better to find a compromise
now than to leave the question of the roadless areas to
lengthy and expensive litigation in the future (litigation,
I would point out, that most likely will make no one happy
in the endG.
I hope my response has answered some of the questions
you~ay have had as to why I support the bill I wrote with
Senator McClure.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
CDA:abl
?400 ANACONDA TOWER
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
OENVFR. COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE 303-298-1000
TWX 910-931-2620
The Honorable Cecil Andrus
Governor of Idaho
State Capitol
Boise, ID 83 720
Dear Govenwr Andrus:
October 27, 1989
lh~ \~ ,_/ Lo l
m:T ~ o
lW
RE: Idaho Forest Management Act
Palisades Area
Bonneville County, Idaho
. _,
It has come to my attention that the wilderness bill which you and Senator
McClure have worked on these last few years is now possibly headed for a
Senate vote. As a result of our meeting last year, and the subsequent
correspondence and discussion between your office and Mr. John Shepherd of
Holland & Hart, I would like to take this opportunity to review our
exploration results and plans for oil and gas exploration in the Palisades
area.
As you are aware, The Anschutz Corporation and its industry partners have
drilled four exploratory wells in the area adjacent to the lands now being
considered for wilderness designation in the bill. To date we have spent an
excess of 30 million dollars toward our effort without commercial success.
In spite of that, we do not feel our endeavors have been fruitless and are
convinced that the Palisades area is still a viable province for oil and gas
exploration and production.
Due to tha dismal state of the oil and gas indust~y in general, and -v~J..j
restricted exploration budgets, we do not have further exploration, in the
form of field seismic acquisition or drilling, scheduled for the Palisades
area at this time. However, we are continuing our exploration and research
efforts by reprocessing existing seismic data and incorporating the results
of our exploration drilling into the interpretive data base for the Palisades
area. The key result of this work is that we are still convinced all of the
elements for accumulations of commercial quantities of oil and gas are
present (source rock, reservoir rock, structure, etc.) . The scientific
theory, technical interpretation, prospect analysis, and all other aspects
of our exploration efforts have been proven to be correct. The unfortunate
fact, evidenced by the dry holes, is the wells were not located in that one
optimum location on the individual prospects where all the required elements
come together to allow for commercial production. This is certainly
discouraging, but not fatal to the exploration of the Palisades area for oil
and gas.
The Honorable Cecil Andrus
October 27, 1989
Page 2
Of the wells we drilled in the area, the Grand Valley Prospect which was the
last well drilled, taught us the most about the Palisades area. From this
well we learned that the structural system is present, the source rock is
properly located, and somewhere along the strike of the Absaroka plate it is
theoretically possible to align these elements properly for the accumulation
of oil and gas in commercial quantities. This brings me to my comments and
observations about the area proposed for wilderness designation in the
Palisades area.
1. The strike of the Absaroka Thrust trends from northwest to
southeast from the area in the vicinity of our Mike Spencer
and Grand Valley Prospects, directly into and through the
proposed wilderness area.
2. If further exploration is to be conducted in the Palisades,
it will be in this area.
3. Continued exploration is currently being conducted on the
Wyoming side of the border in the Palisades area in an
effort to continue the productive trend to the northwest.
4. The general state of the industry, and frontier exploration
in particular, may preclude continued exploration drilling
in Palisades in the immediate future.
In summary, although The Anschutz Corporation cannot assure you that we will
actively explore the Palisades area in the near future, we still feel it
contains valid exploration targets and should remain available for future
exploration, until it is reasonably proven that the potential is very low or
non-existent. We are continuing to pay rentals on our oil and gas leases in
the proposed wilderness area in anticipation of funding and the lands being
available for exploration. To allow the continued exploration of the
Palisades area, we respectfully suggest you consider including a provision
in the bill which would designate the area as a "Wilderness Study Area" with
regard to oil and gas exploration. This provision was included in the
Wyoming Wilderness Bill and has allowed the orderly exploration and
evaluation of that portion of the Palisades area which falls within the State
of Wyoming.
In order to give you a
plans, we are prepared
at your convenience.
matter.
WJM/kmd
clear and concise picture
to meet with you and your
Thank you for your time
of our interpretations and
appropriate staff in Boise
and consideration in this
Sincerely,
THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION
William J. Miller
Land Manager
To: Cecil Andrus
From: Tom Jacob
Subject: Idaho; A Personal Viewpoint
Date: 11-1-89
Because we've never met, please allow me a brief introduction. I'm 34 years
old, born, raised and schooled in Idaho, mainly Boise, and work in m1n1ng
exploration as a geologist (11 years now). Challis is now home. Work takes
me far and wide, luckily over much of Idaho, and keeps me close to the back­country.
I have first-hand experience with mine development, wilderness,
overgrazed range, and wildlife, and so appreciate your dilemma of conservation
versus exploitation in the statehouse.
As a conservationist you are probably familiar with much of the prominent
literature on that subject, but I wanted to present you with a jewel, "A
Sand County Almanac", in case you've not read it. I studied this copy while
camped on a foggy Aleutian Island (Umnak) this past summer, and thought of
home. Aldo Leopold did an extraordinary job of capturing in print the subtle
value and beauty of the land, so often intangible, and the kind of unique
pride I suspect we share for Idaho. Parts 11 and 111 are most concise.
Now I intend to jump onto my soapbox, so please finish here if you've had
enough.
I'm alarmed, even ashamed, by the attitude of many people in our state and
country. We don't seem to give a damn about land ethic. Politicians, cor­porations,
chambers of commerce cry "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs". Farmers, ranchers,
miners, loggers cry "Land, Land, Land". The short-term dollar holds sway,
and a battle erupts when some wish to recognize the priority of a healthy
environment and ecosystem. Personally, I believe we can have a healthy
environment and economy, but we must use restraint in the short term. In
the long term we can have no economy without respect for the environment.
Current issues: Some claim wildlife are too abundant, stifling farming and
livestock; wildlife depredation. I note massive overgrazing by livestock
(not by elk or antelope), habitat loss, too few predators, and too many
trophy hunters. Bighorns succumb to the disease of domestic sheep. One is
lead to believe that peregrine falcons endanger the economy of Dickey, that
liberal use of pesticide, steroid, antibiotics, DMSO, and fertilizer are
safe and sane, that wolves and grizz will be the end of ranching and out­fitting.
I see our timber sold at loss (as I pay for the road), people too
lazy to walk clamor for more roads, roads hastily ordered simply to diminish
wilderness potential, ORV's eroding fragile terrain. Mountains are gouged
and roaded where only stock promotions, not mines, are under development.
\~
- .
My main bone of contention is roads. I expect that 70 or more percent of the
state is accessible by road; many areas and animals just can't stand the
traffic. As far as I am aware only wilderness designation precludes further
roading. Therefore I support your efforts to resolve the wilderness issue,
and favor maximum acreages, such as those presented by several environmental
groups.
Conversely, I am apprehensive of wilderness designation because of the in­creased
publicity, and hence tourist impact, these areas recieve. For example,
the Mount Borah area is extemely dry and foot/horse traffic is likely to have
severe impact upon the rare lakes and streams (because that is where people
flock to drink). This area might better preserve itself, without wilderness
designation, because mineral potential is nill, and timber very limited. I
have seen overgrazing at 10,000 feet, but even wilderness designation does not
exclude cattle.
Is there any alternative to wilderness designation?
Thankyou for your time.
Sincerely,
'1 ... -v--r}--s
Tom Jacob
Box 31
Challis, Idaho 83226
October 4, 1989
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
LeRoy Peterson
2022 Hemlock Ave
Lewiston, ID 83501
I can see no good reason for including the Vanderbilt area in the
Mallard-Larkins Wilderness proposal. Fish and Wildlife concerns have
already been addressed in the cooperative agreement worked out between
the Forest Service, Idaho Fish and Game Department and the forest
industry. That agreement will assure both timber and wildlife will be
provided.
The only justification for another Wilderness in Idaho, I believe, is
the inclusion of a strong provision which releases all remaining
roadless areas for full multiple-use and eliminates continuing legal
hassles over the implementation of forest plans. The current language
in S-371 will not accomplish that.
Sincerely, __/) /J CJ. /.L..<­of.
eKC(Jc/./• r:a.-&~
LeRoy Peterson
LP/mmb
CC: Senator James McClure
Senator Steve Symms
Mr. Darrell J. Daubert
1002 Sunset Court
Lewiston, Idaho 83501
Dear Mr. Daubert:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the
compromise wilderness bill that Senator James McClure and
I developed to deal with the competing demands on our
state's roadless national forests. The u.s. Senate will
likely take action on the Idaho Forest Management Act of
1989 before adjourning this winter.
Our proposal protects the best wild lands remaining in
Idaho~~~ logging on a limited and prescribed
basis in other areas. Senator McClure and I tried to
find a middle ground on forest management issues that all
Idahoans can~ live with. Finding middle ground requires
give and take, and it is never easy. ~~less we want our
resource management issues settled in federal courtrooms,JZ~~
we must find a means to compromise the currently
polarized positions.
Ono •uoh o<ei:C:: a, McClure and I found~em1n '" •JI1!:Q
~was wa~ ··~the Clearwater National Forest. We proposed
wilderness designation for some of the Mallard-Larkins
are~and pr)fscribed special management for adjacent
~
0)·
tracts. The
logging under
special management provisions will allow
~y..ll '(" eJ:>W; ._h OV\ \ o..vJ). ....::.·, \\
:tel baeis uaile protec~ elk habitat
and water quality. We also included the Vanderbilt area
because we felt that the Dolly Varden fishery would best be
cf>
protected ~RQax wilderness.
I understand the concern and uncertainty felt by those who
have jobs that depend on a continued timber harvests from
our national forests. Senator McClure and I took the
best approach possible to protect the existing timber
jobs. Without a wilderness bil~many of the now roadless
areas will remain roadless until lengthy litigation takes
place. With this in mind,~t~ter to find a
compromise now ~to put so much of the timber
industry in jeopardy by not addressing the wilderness issue.
Senator ~- McClure ~? continued to push for release language
that will provide more certainty to the lands released for
I am hopeful that more progress on this
can be made on the Senate floor.
I believe the people of Idaho want the wilderness issue
resolved. It has divided our citizens for too long.
With a balanced and reasonable resolution to the wilderness
issu;;we can get about the business of
national forests for the best multiple
With best regards,
Sincerely
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
managing all our
use for all.
October 4, 1989
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Karl Bierhaus
Rt. 1 Box 76-C
Pomeroy, WA 99347
-- .· ..
\W
I am concerned about the proposal currently pending in Congress (S-371)
which would add 1.4 Million acres of new wilderness to the 4 Million acres
of Wilderness and include an additional 600,000 acres of so-called Special
Management Areas.
I can see no good reason for including the Vanderbilt area in the
Mallard-Larkins Wilderness proposal. Fish and Wildlife concerns have
already been addressed in the cooperative agreement worked out between
the Forest Service, Idaho Fish and Game Department and the forest
industry. That agreement will assure both timber and wildlife will be
provided.
The only justification for another Wilderness in Idaho, I believe, is
the inclusion of a strong provision which releases all remaining
roadless areas for full multiple-use and eliminates continuing legal
hassles over the implementation of forest plans. The current language
in S-371 will not accomplish that.
Sincerely,
Karl Bierhaus
KB/mmb
CC: Senator James McClure
Senator Steve Symms
-
.·--
-- . ·-
..
/W
IW
OFFICE; or· GOVERNOft
L.lsHtJ<o '-ta.IR 1-t~P.R.'r". G+,,.J ~CA.) "R&Au..Lt SU~90t.T L{;(.J.SIJ\.llcN T\>IAT
woul.ct "Ri~fi.Nt:. 1)l c tviAtH~ffi. ( m6AI'lLI\I6- CF f.ltM-1\llN(.,- ~<cAlls LN/ A-ecor
WlUlf£,J~.S 41.)0 W~ 1 LN .SO <t:>Oti'JG-1"Thlc Wlt.()~I\Jf-~ AC:! ~
i)J()-c- Woul.l) <()cP\01/€ WltA:>cSIW~ ~ W~LCR. 1::.\~~
"i)..~'r wool£> txcLuD~ -n.tt- ~uE.u.c. ~Ro~ fuu... PAIU"Lc.t 9P.Tl<T\I ttJ
L),!f. l'f-At<J~~Cr a<= aJR. Ulf..!DJ t,J 1)1€ ~"'t\1 ~l<. SALN.AJ R.\.1/ti<._
'VJZA.N~Ci; ~.,.,JJ
L!Jt.-fP~tJb~1£: Ti.M.SCR.. C)JCR- currc"'& uPm ~a!'lt-!6n..s F~'!~
I)Htr u.>cu.-1) rRd.Jd)t- "TWO \/ttl-lC.U C;3 ~~ W L)..lt Wl:YLit; C.l.OUtlJ ~
I
11\~t."< ()XIUI..I) CM.\Sc· ~WII.\ (}lt fNlilolur"' c<F LilA HOS tJJ lL,[)
u. ~ 1::1.> l'tl C0 !'M4\PI:JL'rl e:5 PRaJ>oc:nN~
•
l C!:lt.f( 'BE:u\lf; lTo P<..&:IU {)0 1U.SLtNTO '-ta.~R ~T.
t.&T lf" UST6-)TO Tr/t tttM..T ~ LOA!+OJ C..&.J'if\A(.., Li:>At+o_..
W tt..CJ L'UA HO,
t>(.b::>.~t: 1 i>Uill.lc.l.'1 Mru:r A C.L-<AIIl&£ CF ~. w Lnt-\)llJlw
.SoPI>otW" ~a .. cHV\. SC"-lf:\"WR Mc.C.UJW f'c.ll6SI f'AAI.JA6f~ ~t..A1b4"o
f'"on. 114E f'u11JII.C. cF lC4~ FaUll OlV f<U.J;'!"l­~
n.I/! Wlt.l:> I..A.SilJ I Wl"(J U\1'65 -
rd(t. iWf SC,tMlc.l.. cF ~tU:WI t S ms.N~ M....tl !Olll+t)
'"i)l 1: c, t+t.t-loot <. ~A I.Jt..orJ -
A >J IJ 'FoR N\. (,
IHA~K. <rot)!
CM~~~
e ... 'j.,. l92.
CAAu;.l, t D A.\\ o 8 37..2 (.,.
1 rer·ur soec1Y:LCcl~1V ~v ~rte ~ta~es~1an's uc~ooer ~~~n ar~~lCle
cr:::•l'rL(·~~i·-nlnLI ·~t· .. ·-vJt"rf.:-:~-.~.1. CJI"·:L-'v·'e i"'• .. :•oCIS~ 1n Ll .. re loan•:• t.-J:L.J.Oel--r··re~;s Dl.i . .t. ..
Cdl"ri"'<:::<'C UE'.I.:t.E.'VE' ;.,l'l2l.-L YC•'.J ~-vu!J.I.Ci d.C:'(,' .. ldJ . .L\1 ~::i-UrJCE:SC C!":J.~~; t.l·"·-.::<.Vt:.:.>!:::.t\1 C•i"!
'if::.' \I'JJ.-CiE7'r"·nL'S:!.1 <:J·l'-'.l.l"fC.lDJ.E: •
.1 n·~et· i'J.::ti cc•n1J.Jr .. t~~·t.:; l• . .:.n et··rq J. nt::.> :t s :::.<J··t)'._tr_ .. <!"r·; tu E~vey··v .L d~::,'t; coJ-"·~·~E·l
e i:!\ 'r'' -~-; 11.
~·Ji:::. P';LJ~:Jr ::Jt··eset·'Vf.0 !d.t···oe Odl''-t!~; OJ: U!Jt·• i"'E.~Ir!C:ili"':Li"rl,:l I"Ui"l';~!::i-c•::; l'<:::<r· ()1,.(~·--·
c: .. lJ. ... c:lr~el'"r~ ,':'\nc (:ruy· ci"r:t.l.or-·-en 1 ~:; c-nJ .. J.Ct···en~
! I'Jdl"'~<. You
ffi?~@[~W~[[JJ
OCT 2 4 1989
(IN
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
::.;f~
-~ G-\
0 -
Pll.t'5llN~'I10l\ !\ . . ' \~ piKJIOO)P1 .;
~,._,,.,_;."' /
-~Of":.-- '/
Plan would overharvest timber, coalitionclain~: l ' :._- .. ·, ' ' . .-•
-Local_ rangers ignored,
environmentalists say
· By Dean Miller
Suffwriler
U.S. Forest Service admiuistrators · haw ignored the
field reports of local nmgers and haw made excessiw tim­ber
harvest plans for the ldabo Panhandle National For­ests,
a coalition of cuviromnental giOUf1'1 charges.
"The nmgers who 1mow these districts recommended a
level of cut and they were cwerriddeu," said Jobn Osborn
of the InlaDd Empire Public Lands Coimcil on Monday.
The nmgers recomm,.•led a cut of 241.5 million board
feet pee year from the Panbandle forests, he said, while
the Forest Service plans to cut 275 million board feet.
Osborn's group and 17 otber sporting and environmen-
C' c
I
tal gRIUf1'1 made the charge in the second rowid of their
admiuistratiw appeal of the ldabo Panhandle National
Forests plan, the long-n~~~ge land use plan far the ranger
districts of NQrth Idabo. ·
· Documents sent to the ForeSt Service Monday represent
the environmentalists' rebuttal to the Forest Service reply
to their original a I. · ·
. .Among other = the gRIUf1'1 allege the timber bar­\'
eSI gca1s will damage fJSh and elk habitat and force the
cutting of immature timber. ·
Forest Service officials in the regional supervisor's offiCe
.were not available for Comment t-fonday, but have said in
the past their plans are environmentally sound. I
After plowing through reams of Forest Service flies, Os­born
said, researchers found evidence that the o!Rrvationil
of distriCI rangers were ignored by regional planned. · l
"The U.S. Forest Service was willing to sacrifice ell,
fl•h water quality, scenic beauty and outdoor recreation in
c
~ to maintain a timber target at any cost," the gRlUf1'l ~ of 283.5 _lllillion board feet from the Panlwicn~ for.·
wrote in the 36-page document. . ests. . " ·' ·_- •
'floe 1tatement is backed up by reference to Fon:st Ser- · · . we Oj~ said the forests cannot li¥e with the tin>­~
~ts such as a letter ~rom A~ Ranger Dis- ber cutting targets Andrus and McClure propose, a
trict off!~ ~ that the timber cuttillg target was McClure spokesman said there are those who cannot live
"unreaaistically high for the fll'S! decade due to the num- without them. ·
ber of drainages that exceed sediment lewis."
In another section of the group's reply, the Wallitce "A lot ofmillworlcers up arowid Bonnen Ferry couldn't
District Ranger is quoted as writing in a Feb. 6, 1984, li¥e withoot it," said Palmer. "This is a very clcir-Cut
letter that foresters on the ground found much lllSS mature · situation where you had a ~-"
timber than had been estimated by regional planners. . . . The other gRlUf1'l taking part in the appeal include the
Osborn praised the Forest Service for opening its ldabo Ccoserwtion League and associated local cbapten;
records to the public for review. He praised the agency for the ldabo Wildlife Federation; InlaDd Northwest Wildlife
opposing the guaranteed timbec sale provisions of a wilder- Council; Inland Empire Backcountry Horsemen; W~­ness
bill written by ldabo Gov. Cecil Andrus and Sen. Jim ton Natiw Plant Society; The Idalio Spoi tsmcll's Coati·
McClure, R-Idabo. . . ·lion; The Sierra Club; The Audubon Society; Selkirk·
McClure is seeking passage of the bill in the U.S. Sen- Priest Basin Association and the National Wildlife
ate this fall with language that would guarantee allowable Federation.
I
- ,_)'
IW
,_ I
1 (c-n.o--ud-4 Ce-c-ce: ~??u-~
1\JJ
_J~/~ _/~ cc.- ~{7rth?U/ _fc~~ -;;n~
_, /-0'.;("- u~~-7"1.f&7t-c/ _,:v-o:</1 . " /Z:e ;J c>-e~z.crc:- ctf'
J,A(,·/f-e-r J C<--?7? <?~-~- ~.h c~·A-o-­--~~
o-f; -~ /11- C:_.t,~-=-- , Z;~zc0c.<;J-- _ c?-c£~ -
_?Le c:~z_ 5~ 3/ 7
-~~~ / (~ .::-c~u&c -1'Jte~?- _ , c.~,tc~aCL cr:.
~~'-,~·?.?U (C-e~ r&-/Z-- . / Zo-z- c:/uz--.?7 !),.,;..,/~.if -C.~- c /
I .
J/c"c~-2 cc.a- /0---,,t-~/~cV~c~C //--e.
~-!'~ ~c?t / /~z d ,J)c~Ao- ,-?zc-'6 / ,{y _.../.7~-r/
~ d«" _ t~ c~ ./Uc.---??U<.e -~~ ~ c=-d...-.u/u-o4,
fi;?&-~?U-<U- ...-V:?-Z J) cLc.</Z.cr -C:2- /:::2£c-cr.ru-/ c?-?~- kr·
{ C(;~a ,<-???t- t~ cz.cU _.-7~ _ ca'-~ ~za_j{k
'
l~.--~-~~--
j_/zcu~ /~ ~c> _1J..e/nc~o ./~ cf4n;J-
.-~ ~tV..b, ~ f'-CVI -Y --Jl~ ,:)~~ c:Y a-pz.. --t~cc~;r
sc:J_ c:e~ >J-r.:;r~:r0-- "'~~" cz:.a7 _/u;., (?/;?U.-n<c';?;?~z~
-· . -"-/. . '. . "" / / /;?4 j) ,(!
, · &-- , A~~~ /l'~C{t'>z.-?2£4.4- -v-c- ~/ - ~~...- -~ ~r
/w~>d~-
cY-~ c.L'c..-u-~ J _/uu.-e v-rz.&-· --?~ ~7~1
/U/71"-&?z-~ Zp~~>-rW .;j'J?.c ~J o-?~ _/:~"' / . -r""/
~ _c/V'.,?U<-c.z-pc,~ _.d ~-u ~c::~- . / .
c.: (;.,nc:-~ 1?".--c/c-t:-c-.?V'n- f-c ~ .
J~~ Y~?n/;7 .;/ ~-?,-vz
Governor Cecil D. Andrus
state Capital Building
BoisB, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
September 21, 1989
2005 Broadview Drive
Lewiston, Idaho 83501
1-tr wife and I are writing this letter to address certain portions of the Andrus­McClure
Wilderness Bill for Idaho, s. 371, as this bill pertains to the Clearwater
National Forest.
The Vanderbilt Area, now in the bill for wilderness, should be deleted from con­sideration
for wilderness. This area can provide up to 10,000 Mbf/year to the
Clearwater ASQ. Any further decrease in the ASQ of the Clearwater will have
severe implications to the timber supply in Clearwater County.
Eliminate a reference to Special Management Areas in the bill. This area, if left
in, will be defacto wildorness areas. They will be eliminated from the timberland
base for the Clearwater and eventually create a disaster in the timber supply in
future years.
Some type of release should also be written into the bill. Areas which have a
certain type management prescribed for them, should be managed according to those
recommendations. This means that a roadless area falling into a timber prescription
should be managed for timber as per Forest Plan.
It is our op1n1on that the Clearwater National Forest Plan should be declared of
legal sufficiency by the u. s. Congress, subject to no judicial review and the man­ag<
ment of the Forest, including its recommendations for management wilderness, be
governed by this Plan.
cc: Senator Symms
Rep. Craig
Rep. Stallings
,,
,_; II-_
\w
·::"/-: • •· t ' • : _1\ '·; ,_'.
Very truly yours,
~ck~ \-~~
Richard J. Hallisy
;};A~Lr"-' 'l). -;J,u:·~~
Lorraine V. Hallisy
f{ I c tft. LC6 1JR I TT7:JA.J
I~ 17 1-toPIAA.lk
CoEuR~ •f!-Lf-10f- 1 ID /?J!;y
'" ·-: '·" .
Statement of
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
July 20, 1989
Re: S. 371, the Idaho Forest Management Act of 1989
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, Evergreen Forest Products is pleased to submit this
statement for the record on S. 371, the Idaho Forest Management Act of 1989, drafted by Senator McClure
and Governor Andrus. Evergreen Forest Products is unique among Idaho's major lumber producing
companies in that we support this legislation. This statement explains why we favor the McCiure-Andrus bill
(despite certain misgivings), and proposes some amendments to Section 103.
S. 371 designates more wilderness in the State of Idaho when there is already a sufficient supply of statutory
wilderness and declining public demand for that resource. The forest products industry in Idaho is concerned
aboutthat situation. In addition, this legislation fails to provide a fair quid pro quo for the new wilderness which
it designates. Put simply, S. 371 does not provide protection and permanence for the national forest timber
base upon which Idaho's wood products manufacturers depend. Mr. Chairman, we are in complete accord
with our colleagues on these two points. Nonetheless, Evergreen Forest Products has decided to support
S. 371. We do so for four very pragmatic reasons:
• The wilderness additions proposed within the Payette National Forest have been limited to areas with little
commercial timber.
• The French Creek/Patrick Butte road less area and the lower elevations of the South Fork Salmon drainage
have been included within "special management" classifications that will not preclude planned timber
harvests.
• The bill removes a major hurdle to development of the national forest road less areas in Idaho which are
not being designated wilderness by this legislation; it gets us out from under the heavy burden of the
decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California v. Block.
• Finally, we believe that this is the best state-wide wilderness compromise that can be produced for Idaho.
If this legislation is not enacted into law, the wilderness debate will continue indefinitely, diverting the
attention of all interested parties from the many other problems that face the national forests in Idaho.
And, when an Idaho wilderness bill is finally approved, the size and number of wilderness areas contained
therein will probably resemble closely the McCiure-Andrus bill.
Before discussing the provisions of S. 371 that are of particular interest to our company, it is necessary to
provide the subcommittee with background information about Evergreen Forest Products and the Payette
National Forest.
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
1
Evergreen Forest Products
Evergreen Forest Products, is a family-owned lumber manufacturing company located at Tamarack, Idaho.
Our sawmill processes approximately 40 million board feet (mmbf) of sawlogs annually. We employ about 85
people and spend approximately $7.5 million annually for contract logging, payroll, and the local purchase
of goods and services. Our Tamarack mill is almost entirely dependent upon timber from the Payette National
Forest.
In early 1981, we began a program to improve the operating efficiency of our sawmill. This modernization
program was the result of an extensive long-term planning analysis which we conducted in 1979. Our
conclusion at that time- which has since proven to be correct- was that we had to update our mill and greatly
expand capacity in order to remain competitive.
The core of our improvement program was construction of a state-of-the-art computer-assisted sawmill. In
the first phase of construction, we built a facility to process small diameter logs, targeting for maximum
utilization and recovery. The new "small log" mill was completed in 1982 and became fully operational in
February 1983.
As part of our plan to reduce operating costs and increase revenues, in 1982 we also began building an
electrical cogeneration plant. This facility burns wood waste from the lumber manufacturing process to
produce steam for the lumber kilns and the generation of electricity. The cogeneration plant was completed
in 1983 and has been working successfully since that time.
In early 1984, we initiated the second phase of the modernization effort. Additional equipment was installed
in the new sawmill to process larger logs and to take full advantage of the advanced computerized resaw and
lumber sorting facilities of the new mill.
The third and final phase of our improvement program- installation of a new planer and increased dry kiln
capacity-was completed in early 1988. I am proud to report to you that our facility at Tamarack is now one
of the most efficient in Idaho.
The Payette National Forest
Our only concern about the future is whether or not we will be able to buy enough timber from the Payette
National Forest to keep the Tamarack mill operating at peak efficiency. We hope that enactment of this bill
and implementation of the Payette Forest Plan will lead to a strong, reliable timber sale program. There is no
question that the trees are there to accomplish that objective.
The Payette Forest contains 2,295,800 acres of land. Non-forest and land withdrawn from timber production
total 943,900 acres. The remaining 1,351,800 acres were analyzed during preparation of the forest plan to
determine timber suitability. This analysis showed that 8,200 acres were physically unsuitable and 522,700
acres were unsuitable due to reforestation problems. The remaining 821,000 acres were classified as
tentatively suitable.
The net sawtimber volume inventoried by the Forest Service on the tentatively suitable land was 9.313 billion
board feet, with annual net growth estimated to be 30.2 million board feet. The Payette Forest's potential
timber growth, on the other hand, was estimated to be 200.6 mmbf per year. The reason for the discrepancy
between actual and potential growth is that most of the timber stands on this forest are over-mature and are
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
thus growing at less than 25 percent of their potential. [Some 540,860 acres- 66 percent of the tentatively
suitable land -are stocked with trees that are either mature or over-mature.]
As part of its "benchmark analysis," the planning team from the Payette Forest estimated the maximum volume
of timber that could be produced on a long-term sustained-yield basis from the lands classified as tentatively
suitable. It was determined that approximately 130 mmbf of timber could be cut annually while providing basic
protection of soil, water, and fish and wildlife resources. However, the Forest Service has dedicated 384,000
acres of the tentatively suitable land to uses other than timber, thereby limiting the proposed timber sale
program to a range of 75 to 80 mmbf. (See Figure 1 for a comparison of the timber benchmark with the
anticipated timber sale program.)
We have argued repeatedly that more timber should be offered for sale. It is outrageous that nearly half of the
available supply will go to waste. The Forest Service knows that timber demand in this area Is elastic; the local
mills can, and will, purchase as much good-quality timber as is offered for sale.
160
140
120
100
80
60
20
0
Figure 1.
Potential Future Timber Sale Levels*
Payette National Forest
Board Feet of Timber Per Year (Millions)
2 3
Decade
~ Timber Benchmark
4 5
Ill Selected Alternative
Source: Final Payette Forest Plan *With Minimum Management Requirements
Wilderness and Road less Areas
Congress has, on two prior occasions, set aside land within the boundaries of the Payette National Forest as
wilderness (24,000 acres in Hells Canyon, and 770,000 acres in the Frank Church - River of No Return
Wilderness). In addition, 21 roadless areas totalling 945,000 acres were reevaluated for wilderness during
preparation of the Payette Forest Plan. Two of the areas- Needles and Secesh-were recommended by the
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
Forest Service for wilderness designation. Together, these two areas encompass 212,000 acres of land,
bringing the total area designated or recommended for wilderness to approximately 982,000 acres, or about
42.8 percent of the Payette Forest.
Projections of wilderness use made by the Forest Service indicate that the capacity of the existing wilderness
areas to accornodate visitors (without degrading appreciably the "wilderness experience") will not be
exceeded for at least the nex1150 years.
Given these facts, one would assume that roads will be built and timber sold in most, if not all, of the remaining
roadless areas. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Final Payette Forest Plan instead proposes to keep
most of the existing roadless areas in an unroaded condition forever. That is the principal reason why the
average annual volume of timber planned for sale during the nex150 years is approximately 60 percent of the
timber benchmark.
Figure 2 and figure 3, below, vividly illustrate just how little existing roadless acreage will ever be roaded.
Figure 2 shows the miles of road to be built per year on the Payette National Forest during each of the nex1
five decades, and Figure 3 shows how the land of the Payette Forest has been allocated under the Final Plan.
50
Figure 2.
Future Road Construction
Payette National Forest
Miles of Road Constructed Per Year
2
- In Road less Areas
Source: Final Payette Forest Plan
3
Decade
~ Total Construction
4
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
5
Figure 3.
Proposed Land Uses
Payette National Forest
Existing Wilderness
35%
Proposed Wilderness
9%
Source: Final Payette Forest Plan
Planned Roadless Area Development
Future Timber Sales*
15%
Planned Timber Sales
4%
Roadless/Undeveloped
37%
* After the next 1 Q-15 years
The Record of Decision for the Payette Forest Plan states that:
"Actual change of the roadless character through scheduled timber [management activities will affect]
approximately 179,000 acres or about 19 percent of inventoried roadless lands. Therefore, when the Forest
Plan is revised in 10 to 15 years, over 80 percent or about 768,900 acres of the presently inventoried road less
lands will either be designated wilderness or remain roadless ... " ]ROD at p. 1 0.]
However, it is important to note that the pace of road less land development anticipated during the first planning
period will not be sustained in the future. While it is true that the Forest Service plans to develop about 179,000
acres during the next 10 to 15 years, only 83,800 additional road less acres will be developed in subsequent
planning periods.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, Evergreen Forest Products operates on a national forest that consists primarily
of wilderness and roadless lands. We believe that present Forest Service plans to severely limit future road
building and timber harvests are just plain wrong. Without greater road access, the susceptibility of the Payette
Forest to catastrophic events such as fire, insect infestations, and disease is increased unacceptably. That is
one of the principal policy concerns raised in our appeal of the Payette Plan.
While we disagree with the management program selected by the Forest Service, we find the position taken
by local and national preservation groups on this bill (and on Payette issues in general) to be even less
acceptable. The preservationists claim that the Payette wilderness provisions of S. 371 are "woefully inade­quate"
and that certain roadless lands- most notably in the French Creek/Patrick Butte roadless area and
the lower elevations of the South Fork Salmon River watershed- must be designated wilderness. They say
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
that if Congress does not preclude all development in these places, then the Forest Service will "permit the
areas' destruction" and soon the Payette Forest will be little more than "a commercial tree farm."
Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. As mentioned above, the Forest Service intends to
keep over 80 percent of the Payette Forest forever roadless and undeveloped. And, an area-by-area
examination of the agency's plans shows that the bulk of all of the existing inventoried roadless areas will
remain indefinitely in an unroaded condition. (See Table 1 on the next page, which is reprinted from the Record
of Decision for the Final Payette Forest Plan.)
However, the Final Plan does contemplate short-term development in the lower elevations of the inventoried
roadless areas. In fact, according to Forest Service estimates, "[s]ales in roadless areas provide 23 percent
(283 mmbf) of the total [Allowable Sale Quantity] during the next fifteen years." And, the Forest Plan states
that: "If, for various reasons, a sale in an inventoried roadless area cannot be sold, that volume will not be
replaced by a sale outside of existing roadless areas." [ROD at p. 7.]
That provision of the Payette Plan concerns us because it provides an additional opportunity for mischef to
those individuals who would like to eliminate or reduce greatly the Payette's timber sale program. Moreover,
it makes passage of an Idaho wilderness bill all that more critical. We do not linger under the illusion that the
standard "release language" will protect timber sales within roadless areas from all challenges. However, we
agree with the opinion expressed by Senator McClure that at least enactment of this bill will remove the
"automatic" shut-down lever provided to the preservationists by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in its California
v. Block decision.
The Right Bill at the Right Time
Mr. Chairman, S. 371 is the right bill at the right time. Senator McClure and Governor Andrus have produced
a bill that limits new wilderness designations within the Payette National Forest to the two areas recommended
for wilderness by the Forest Service. As mentioned earlier, these two areas (Needles and Secesh) have little
merchantable timber and their designation as wilderness will not have a significant effect on the timber sale
program now contemplated for the Payette National Forest.
In addition, the lower elevations of the South Fork Salmon watershed and the French Creek/Patrick Butte
roadless area have been included within special management area classifications that should permit timber
sale activities to proceed at a slow, but deliberate rate. These areas contain some of the best-quality,
highest-value timber in southern Idaho as well as important fish and wildlife habitat. It has been obvious for
many years that logging in these areas would be hotly contested, unless concrete assurances could be made
that timber harvesting would not jeopardize restoration of the South Fork fish runs and maintenance of the
French Creek elk herds. We thinkS. 371 provides a workable formula for responsible development of these
areas.
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
6
Table 1
Comparison of Major Roadless Areas and
Changes Made Between the Proposed and Final Forest Plans
-
Roadless Area Net Acres Forest Plan Direction Proposed Final
French Creek/
Patrick Butte 168,215 Proposed Wilderness 0 0
Undeveloped Recreation 116,852 116,852
General Forest Management 49,874 49,874
Research Natural Area 1,489 1,489
Secesh 259,682 Proposed Wilderness 108,103 116,189
Undeveloped Recreation 125,962 125,962
General Forest Management 22,841 14,755
Research Natural Area 2,776 2,776
Needles (PNF) 130,204 Proposed Wilderness 95,816 95,816
Undeveloped Recreation 9,005 9,005
General Forest Management 25,383 25,383
Caton Lake (PNF) 48,678 Proposed Wilderness 0 0
Undeveloped Recreation 40,499 45,019
General Forest Management 7,020 2,500
Research Natural Area 1,159 1 '159
Cottontail Point/
Pilot Peak 98,532 Proposed Wilderness 0 0
Undeveloped Recreation 47,023 47,023
General Forest Management 51,509 51,509
Rapid River (PNF) 53,114 Proposed Wilderness 0 0
Undeveloped Recreation 38,425 38,425
General Forest Management 12,332 12,332
Research Natural Area 2,357 2,357
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
Recommended Amendments to S. 371
Although we support the special management concepts embodied in sections 103. (a)(5) and 103. (a)(6), we
recommend that the following amendments be adopted when the bill is marked-up:
1. On page 14, line 4, amend the second sentence to read as follows: "The goals of this management
prescription are to produce timber from the productive forest land and to improve wildlife and fishery
resources over all of the special management area."
Rationale: The final Payette National Forest plan proposes that the French Creek/Patrick Butte road less
area be subdivided among several different "management areas" and managed according to the following
prescriptions:
The productive forest land, most of which lies adjacent to existing roads at low elevations will be managed
for timber production. [This land is located primarily in Management Area 11 (Boulder/Goose) and
Management Area 12 (Payette Lake).]
The higher elevation, more remote portions of the roadless area are to be left in an unroaded condition,
where amenity values, such as fish and wildlife habitat, are to have top priority. [This is Management Area
10 (French Creek/Patrick Butte).]
The bill should recognize that the final Plan has already delineated how and where the timber/wildlife
balance is to be achieved within the larger roadless area boundary. The language in the bill should
preserve the balance which has already been achieved in the forest plan.
2. On page 15, line 4, strike the period and add the following clause: "unless an adjacent area of big game
security is provided."
Rationale: This amendment is needed to bring the bill into precise conformance with the forestwide
standards and guidelines for wildlife promulgated in the Final Payette Plan. [See page IV-34.]
3. On page 16, line 2, change the word "goal" to "goals" to conform with our recommended amendment 1.
4. On page 16, at the end of line 2, strike the period and add the following clause, "Provided, however, that
nothing in this subsection shall, in and of itself, require amendment or revision of the Final Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest dated May 6, 1988, prior to such time as that
Plan would normally be amended or revised."
Rationale: We believe that the bill should make it clear that what is intended is to make permanent certain
management prescriptions contained in the Final Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette
National Forest, and not to enact an entirely new set of management prescriptions which could require
amendment or revision of the Payette Plan.
5. On page 16, at the end of line 15, strike the period and add the following clause: "Provided, however,
that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the transport of felled timber or other forest products over
the roads inside the boundaries of the South Fork Special Management Areas. so long as such
transportation is otherwise in compliance with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe."
Rationale: The map delineating the boundaries of the South Fork Special Management Areas excludes
the existing road along the river itself. However, we believe that the language we have recommended
makes it clear that timber may be hauled over this road.
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
6. On page 17, line 7, change the word "BOISET" to "BOISED" to correct a spelling mistake.
7. On page 18, after line 24, insert the following new paragraph:
"(D) Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, a report describing how the
provisions of this subsection shall be implemented. Such report shall include a detailed schedule of
activities to implement, test, and improve the sedimentation monitoring and mitigation program required
by this subsection. The Secretary shall ensure that the sedimentation monitoring and mttigation program
required by this subsection is implemented and tested within seven years after the date of enactment of
this Act and a final report submitted to the abovementioned Committees of Congress within that seven
year period of time."
Rationale: Evergreen Forest Products believes that the special management prescription for the South
Fork Salmon area will help ensure that timber is eventually sold there. However, we are concerned that
the schedule of activities proposed in the final Payette Plan will not permit a timely test and review of the
provisions of subsection 103. (a){6).
The final plan calls for only one small "research" timber sale-the so-called "Tailholt" sale-within the
South Fork watershed during the next ten years. We believe that additional timber sales, conducted with
careful planning and public Involvement, must be scheduled within the drainage during the coming
decade.
8. After the new paragraph "(D)" set forth above, add the following new paragraph:
"(E) Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall amend the the final Land
and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest dated May 6, 1988, to ensure that such
Plan conforms to the provisions of this subsection, Provided, however, that the preparation of such
amendment shall not require -
(i) public involvement comparable to that required by subsection {d) of section 6 of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 as amended {88 Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1610);
or
(ii) preparation of an environmental impact statement as might otherwise be required under subsection
102{2){C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 {83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 431-4347), subsection
(g){1) of section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 as amended,
or the regulations promulgated pursuant to those Acts.
Rationale: Unlike the management prescriptions proposed for the French Creek/Patrick Butte area, the
proposed prescriptions for the South Fork would - and should- trigger preparation of an amendment to the
Payette Forest Plan. However, to assure that such amendment is promptly prepared and implemented, the
requirements for additional public involvement and preparation of an environmental impact statement should
be waived.
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Evergreen Forest Products appreciates the opportunity to once again present our views on
the proposed Idaho Forest Management Act to the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and
Forests. We hope that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will mark-up this bill promptly
so that it may be considered by the full Senate and House of Representatives in a timely manner.
Evergreen Forest Products, Inc.
HADLEY B. RoBERTS
CERTIFIED WILDLIFE
BIOLOGIST
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
(RETIRED)
708 LOMBARD STREET • SALMON, IDAHO 83467 • PHONE: (208) 756-2163
Governor Cecil D. Andrus
State Capitol Building
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus,
August 7, 1989
i' \';
u ·--
In February 1987 I wrote you about your proposed Wilderness
Bill, suggesting certain areas that I would like to see included
in the bill. I also proposed to you ti1e establishment of a
National Recreation Area in Central Idaho. In your reply, you did
not mention this proposal. I am wondering if you have ever given
this idea any consideration?
To refresh your memory, I proposed that a very large block of
Central Idaho including four existing Wilderness Areas (Selway­Bitterroot,
Frank Church/River of No Return, Gospel Hump and
Sawtooth), the Sawtooth NRA, existing Wild, Scenic and Recreation
Rivers, areas proposed for roadless management in National Forest
Plans and as much of the proposed Wilderness that can be agreed
upon, be included in a Central Idaho National Recreation Area. It
would be roughly defined as lying west of Salmon, north of Sun
Valley, east of McCall and Cascade and south of the Lochsa River.
See enclosed map.
Currently this area is ''the playground of Idaho''. It is a
major hunting area, containing a majority of the elk, bighorn
sheep and mountain goats of the state. It is a major fishing
area, producing a majority of the anadromous species - salmon and
steelhead, plus excellent populations of resident species. Four
threatened or endangered wildlife species live at least part of
their life cycles here. Most of the whitewater rafting is done
here and it contains scenery unsurpassed anywheres else in the US.
There are unlimited opportunities for snow sports, backpacking,
hiking, horse back riding, sightseeing, photography and wildlife
viewing. In short, there are few, if any, places in the US that
have recreational values as high as Central Idaho. I know because
I have been to most of them.
Furthermore, these resources, except possibly for steelhead
fishing and big game hunting, are not being fully utilized. There
are unlimited opportunities for many additional people to enjoy
the area without ruining it. This would in turn lead to the
expansion of existing businesses and creation of new recreation­based
businesses around the periphery of the entire area -
Challis, Salmon, Ketchum, Stanley, Cascade, McCall, Kooskia, etc.
Proof of this lies in the Sawtooth NRA. Its name recognition has
brought a large influx of recreationists to the Sun Valley -
Stanley area without undue environmental damage. I feel the same
would be true of a Central Idaho NRA.
Since your proposed Wilderness Bill is hopelessly deadlocked,
I feel that an NRA bill could pave the way to resolving the
impasse. A large part of the wilderness proposed by environmental
groups is located within my proposed NRA boundary. Since many
people have a misunderstanding and apprehensions over the word
''wilderness'', perhaps NRA status would make the bill more
palatable and provide a compromise solution to the wilderness
situation.
I would like to see the Idaho wilderness situation put to
rest and I would also like to see some recognition and protection
of the high recreation values found in Central Idaho. Could this
be a possible solution? I would very much like to hear your
thoughts on my idea, especially if you think it has any merit.
Everyone talks about Idaho and its recreation resource but
there never seems to be anything major done to promote it. I feel
that this proposal would put Idaho on the map. I'm convinced that
something like this is needed if recreation and tourism is ever
going to be fully exploited.
I recently received an announcement of ''The 1989 Governor's
Conference on Recreation''. It sounds like a fantastic conference
if it accomplishes the objectives - Integrating Idaho's recreation
providers and working together to better serve the customer. To
accomplish this, I would suggest the conference be geared to
looking at the big picture, not little details. In other words,
what parts of Idaho are going to be dedicated to recreation
activities and how will these areas be managed?
Could the establishment of a Central Idaho National
Recreation Area be a part of the agenda of this conference? If
Idaho is to be a recreation state, this part of the state must be
recognized for what is here. Your comments would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
HADLEY B. ROBERTS
>~;>;.If. Cref!k ~ .-Ill
..-4" FOREST WILDERNESS .-11
.-11
A
.. --+ . u ~
Sept. 13, 1989
Hon. Cecil D. Andrus
Governor of Idaho
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Gov. Andrus:
friends of Lime Creel(
ant£ tlie SoUier Mountains
746 Santa Paula Court
Boise, Idaho 83712
Upon several occasions you and Sen. McClure have assured me publicly,
personally, and through your aides that the special mangement language for
the Lime Creek and Smoky Mountains would be corrected to reflect your
original intent in the final version of the Idaho Forest Management Act.
I hope it is not too late to accomplish that. S.2055 last year and now
S.371 were both printed with the deficient wording.
I am concerned that in the push to get the bill through the Senate this
year, the special management direction for Lime Creek and the Smokys will
be forgotten. I would hate to see that happen because I think your overall
concept for the area .has great merit. It would make more permanent the
temporary protection we achieved in our settlement with the Sawtooth Na­tional
Forest earlier this year.
In addition to prohibiting logging, mining, and road building, as affirmed
at your June 1988 news conference, it might be good to state the fish and
game habitat enhancement and recreational purposes of the area's special
management.
It may interest you to know that the draft Sawtooth National Forest travel
plan just out reflects an informal agreement between trail bikers and
friends of Lime Creek to close the Beaver Creek trails on Iron Mountain to
motor vehicles. Those are the primary horse and hiker routes to Heart
Lake.
Such arrangements also should be possible in the Smokys if we could just
get some of the less strident voices on both sides to talk with each other.
Thanks again for your help in protecting Lime Creek.
Per e. G/.to'S> s
lt2 7 At/l(...l4'7 Au.
LEw ts·•~ .,J .L D K-:5 S"D1
Go \J6'7..tV <> '\.. Cc:rcH.. A,.vo~"'.S
S'IA T~ CA- f ITJL
EJts& rD
" l
L\Nf
OF I
.DtrS\6 ~Vq'T/.N 6 S€GM&JV·iJ Df ftvd (ALIP<>t1Ah-.t A;J-"t.Tn C\:l ~3 r ~/IJ~A.J
AS WiLO 1\rJ<? SC&-1V1<-. (A-r -rH~ £'-cv.S.N'/11 t:t-''-'-'t) /N Rcs~:;-~J~&- ~
l'H~ Govci\!V)'"' JBI'\~'1 11/l.DvJ"''J P~IITto ... J A"'~ A:>-" yo.J"- /l.ol.f
of- 'yoJ~ f./\)1 1tc.71vAJ.s T -v,q...s i)tSJtPf:>-... ,,r;~~ 7v t'{.641J
/
HBtt'f4 5cSr-~A"tt"\ ;4 c.. ClvAJ- D~FI 4 L? ILL j)t;,s 16 rJ.tJit,..;,
/;) I'-1H .. ll""' ..AC...tt.6-.f o~ t.VIlD&~.-v\?-SJ lf.l..sT~o o? 'S:U~f'JI)T/AJc
C~ O,.Jt>.'\.c.s'JM4J"" P8- i6-A f1-/ o ~".r.,.r..-_._ o, r- A-.t.; qc:· .•- -I ', <~:::>- __ aI
J\..tlll 10-.) "}C."\..19- ~iLl. _)1M S.; 1.d 'YthJII/6
H£4-<1~ ALL o\.z c~6 4.t2..()u,...,&N'IJ orJ ~ (jltf
StJ}~J 5.> :J wo-J c..,-
I r IX> S1 N C.C::"\tTl Y ..ftDI' ..,, )oJ Wrll..
?t:lc.tctrJc ?&rrt!-/\ k.._.,st A-14Yt"""-
1
J
v ..

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Chris Johnson
3964 Yorktown Way
Boise, ID 83706
Dear Mr. Johnson:
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720
{2081 334-2 1 00
December 29, 1989
Thank you for your recent letter and for sending me
your concerns about the wilderness bill that Senator James
McClure and I drafted.
One thing I learned when I was Secretary of the
Department of the Interior is the need to work with people
of many viewpoints when addressing issues that concern the
preservation or use of natural resources. Because both of
us recognize that need, Senator McClure and I tried to find
a middle ground on the wilderness issue. Any compromise
requires give and take, and it is never easy. However, we
both believe that to compromise now is better than to leave
the question of the roadless areas to lengthy and expensive
litigation--litigation that most likely will make no one
happy in the end.
Many Idahoans like you are concerned about or directly
oppose the latest amendments to the wilderness bill. These
changes were made in order for the bill to pass the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Some changes were
ones Senator McClure and I agreed to long ago. Others were
proposed by other senators.
The "release language" that deals with lands not
classified as wilderness is an updated version of general
release language found in wilderness bills. It ties the
review of these currently roadless areas to the forest
planning process where it should be. The water rights
language was changed slightly to omit the five wilderness
areas previously classified in Idaho. The language dealing
December 29, 1989
Page Two
with roads was a compromise between Senators ~1cClure and
Dale Bumpers of Arkansas. I share your concerns about the
process set out in identifying roads that exist in
wilderness areas. I prefer wilderness boundaries,
including "cherrystems" if necessary, to be included in the
legislation and not left to some U.S. Forest Service
official to draw at a later date.
If we are to resolve the wilderness issue in Idaho, I
believe this legislation is the best vehicle to use
although I do not hold out much hope for its passage. If
you or any other person or group desires a different
solution, I urge you to draft your own bill and submit it
to the Congress. I stand ready to comment upon, make
suggestions on or oppose your efforts--whichever will do
the most good.
With best regards,
CDA:abl
a/c/f iw
Ll228.08
y;9!;;2/3;)3
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
December 10, 1989
Governor Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID
Dear Governor Andrus,
lffi~(Gj~~w~~
[)EC 111989
lW
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
tl........ \)\.... ..... ,_..,
".'l:LJI ""to."-\"'''"" vJ.-,
I would like to express my concerns with Senator McClure's S371 bill soon to
be before the US Senate. I am aware that you were involved in developing the
bill with Mr. McClure, and that you consider the agreement you reached a
reasonable compromise.
I must admit that I did not share that opinion, feeling that the thing being
compromised was Idaho's ecological integrity. Initially aware of only the
acreage numbers, I was concerned that so many pristine areas would be opened
to consumptive use while so few were to be protected.
Additional concerns continued to develop as the bill was finalized and the
particulars became public knowledge. Because of the timing of the release of
the most disturbing provisions, and because of their nature, I came away with
the distinct impression that Mr. McClure was weakening the protective features
you and he had agreed to. I'll point out a few of the provisions that deeply
concern me, and hope that you can comment on whether you agreed to them as
they are presently written and are willing to accept their implications. Your
backround shows strong support for so many of the areas this bill so deeply
threatens.
• The roads provision of S371 uses a definition of road which is
unrealistically inclusive. It calls for a seven year review process, with the
Forest Service making the final decision on which "x-oads" are included.
I am aware that you did not want to include roads in wilderness areas. I can
accept this, even though most exioting wilderness areas had roads at one time
which were either abandoned or closed. Allowing illegal tracking or driving to
cause an area to be removed from wilderness consideration is unrealistic,
though. I can fox-esee a scenario where anyone with anti-wilderness feelings
can for the next seven years reduce wilderness boundaries by illegally
tracking the land. I remind you of the strong political influences the Forest
Service is subject to, especially from Mr. McClure. He will need only one
reelection to exert his influence for the duration of the review. Illegally
tracked areas, and long abandoned roads returning to wild, are more
appropriately included in wilderness areas than allowed to segment them and
threaten the ecological preservation the wilderness designation represents.
• Language in S371 specifically denies federal water rights to the
wilderness this bill creates.
Much of the wilderness proposed by this bill is at high elevation. Locations
at stream headwaters l!lhould preclude practical water diversion, which would be
ecologically disastrous. Impact on newly created wilderness would likely be
minimal.
Significant impact could occur on existing wilderness areas. Since water
rights are not typically mentioned in wilderness legislation, much of the
existing wilderness system is threatened, by this bill, with being dewatered.
Wilderness is defined in federal legislation establishing the wilderness
system as "untrammeled by man". Yet this bill supports the most grave
imaginable threat to ecological integrity of the until now protected areas. No
wilderness bill, no matter how much land it proposes to preserve, should be
considered if it opens previously protected areas to such degradation.
• The "rollins release" prov1S1ons of S371 seem to seal the fate of
all roadless areas not preserved in this Forest Management Act. The
traditional public participation in Forest Service planning, mandated by the
1976 Forest Management Act, would be inhibited by precluding wilderness
consideration for the majority of the state's forested roadless areas.
Instead of having the voice in public policy that present law requires, all US
citizens will be forced to subsidize the destruction of most of Idaho's
remaining wild forests. These are mostly those further away places most
valuable to those seeking an unaltered environment and least practical to
harvest. As many recent studies have shown, local economies are better served
even in the short term by preserving ecological integrity than by harnessing
it. Consumptive use in these areas would represent mortgaging Idaho's future
for the short term gain of a conscienceless few. Yet this bill forces just
this destructive practice.
Idaho has a more intact environment, and more potential for intact
preservation than anywhere else in the country, possibly more than anywhere
else. Nothing could better preserve Idaho's economy than preserving it's
ecology. I know this since I am an environmental professional happily settled
in Idaho after seeing a few different areas of this country. I envy Idaho
natives, who have not had to witness the degradation and insults to
environmental integrity so common in other developed areas, most of which had
much less to offer in the first place. I am honored to be employed in
preserving the environmental integrity of this great state, and remain
dedicated to the task.
Of the propo•als including wilderness preservation in Idaho now active in
Congress, I remain staunchly behind the measure proposed by the one who's seen
Idaho's wilderness. I ask that if you feel differently, you please address the
concerns I've raised. I can not believe that a man of your experience and
integrity could support all the clauses in 8371. Please help make sure that if
that bill does come up, it does not receive your backing while including
provisions that you can not support.
Sincerely,
.>,.., s'-­Chris
Johnson
Governor Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
3, December, 1989
I am writing to ask that you consider modifying or withdrawing your
support of S 371- the Idaho Forest Management Act introduced into the
U.S. Senate by Senator McClure.
I understand the difficulty and compromise involved in this issue but
a couple of areas are of such overriding concern I felt I needed to
write.
The ''road'' provisions in the Act represent an attack on the concept
of Wilderness itself. It leaves the potential for a motorized
network across these wilderness areas. It seems hardly a balanced
approach to take the position that all government land should be
roaded with only a small fraction set aside for non motorized use.
I am concerned about Northern Idaho, since I live here• ~he area is
heavily logged
~'1~~~~~....1 ~~·
?/f!._7,5c_ w•4-l.d~w you.! s""if"or-T o.lf S. 3'?1. ~Q
k rv.:~.J rv•)r'o'1 vt'0(7#~5 ~ifro'1 3 (~ 0~ .i-S:
-/4. tJ;I.kr-~s Ac.-t fl"'t~f o-f-'-- -A.J-@' ~ ~
e..-.,.( f" ~ \
~- 371. P-~e.~-~:..'z- ;~if:~~ "'o ~ I > u>- -ll
9£00Z ·:ra 'uol6U!IJSI!M ''M'N '1~;1.1'1$ 1119! Z tr1 'UO!ll!'J;)p;),:l iiJliPI!~etiO!fi"N zg),l: lj6!JA:dOJ
~-: .b~ ~ ~ o~-- = ~
~~ () .lJ ,...
lll-{i\ :i.oc
J ~- ,, ·. '--~=-,J ~ -~·N-~i' ~~ ..., - .fl. • < v ,...... lr:i:.\ _. • . < ,
~. ~· ~en . ,1 : o~· 2;;;- OQ ! l \ ~· :::l !!
vJ -< '"". i' !l. 0. ~ 7'··\fl -!:, . '
lJJ
-~-- Zlflil!£ .. !ML.£o__t,..,4*_s:t!.fct"f:1-. _ .f'.t2d•/15'tdN.S _11:-,.ro . L)(C.ti~zuJ,../J _7'~--
r: 11:fi _ 4:C4v/...8'12__LLJJ.cs 1 CII//L7t o,J .. s-r~l?.~S. __ -~-~7JM'7 rtf:?_.$ _ _§!._~~~~/fpy_U) __ 19F r~t:~o dow , _ 0/.L tu/)(?_Otl7 ...
__
0
___ "_fJf.7,._1L l1t!V.f7tti•J I TC ~t7@iYhd_lh_J'__JVf_l"_wz-r
··- dO~- r·--
- . - - - --- -·. - ----- '"'- -. -·
"
- 1H7<> /JtC-L ts tct4H7 rc.ILLf Of'fOr-eo ;gy .sev. "•1Jf-.tl/ f BIVHJcey ,
;Tn/t) lhe1ze,..}f31JVIVJ /l)t.Jf /3eC1'1VK .f€N. /J1c C(L t-hs j{!f'ft£ 13117 Mcttv~e
. -rm vrnuous P('..OV!St()(I)S CUNithtJz,f) vvrNfi,J l'rf2e /)f!.fC£1JftJf'- S£71/1\Jc;
f/-rvl) i,.JOUc.O /YZ t-hC.Ift-'( fJZ1tliMzN7tfL 10 f31/7f1 10 /fi+O ft:JJZ,t2tl1_
LJ1,vi)S 1/n!Q {fl!J'i~ ,:zOE.tUh.. UhitJS (u l{z_ {Ot..O;Zifi)O) 1\i(.v...) U42t'R.
. Wt tl) zf1...NiSS P ('..J)I'OS ltL , 5Pf c f Fwtu '( :
t'; ~.i::·~~}'r;.~V;ii~'>;;.;.'i,:'. (~:~e [I(CLW~D ftZ.rJ"" WILOtr:NfS5 - Mc.Ct ... ue'l.- 1-1-14Ht.tt;lt7£C> 150
I I vvttus or- PfhZf-1-t.-t.~'-- -rVZACic.s i-Ii. cftN--r £ v£1\.J ?urce. -HE DDzSNI
i:::No..v wet!..veo wryrerz f2.t41t1S . Lrtt.t: Cowr.'.-t+tJo, tt.{oS1
IDit?W c.uc(..oetUJess A-c.fU..S H!.X ,rJ i-ieMVIJtrle(J_S fH1£J"6 , _frBo_v'e
(JoS'~t8L.e Coff?lfl,vMeN/ ofl- OlvU.S\6,0 Pi20Jects . Ir rs -&s-r -ro Df.PttJ'i.. (,.v1 LDeiZ_tvfSS lrP...ef'r5. NcJw fWO Lei tHe (0Uf21J
ozc!O£ 1H-1S coMft.£i ;swe , IrS 111ec( Prf...£ Do;Nt. tN l~+e wA-Ke.
Or ·(ltf2, /2ULIN4 6V Jvor:;e /(fniJf... ,,J "{t+e.. f£0Wtt'l... Ms1tUC(
(ouf-1 J/1.) CuLoo...m)o, vvit..I)L.lf'l. A-NO 111\'6\11\1::i rJiil) 5<>Mz >vt\'1£tL i To
5f'ZCIFICI'il..l.'f. D'irvj F'tQf/U\'1.. Ll+rv{)) wJ\1f('.__ IZICrf15 , wiH'1rtuZ.. 5f£N,oo_ c..;!Z...
JLhvic.Jr'L fo o'llttrl. et.:;l-(1-. _-err __ c _' :l'I,)I_ ________ .
I!
------------~p::\lf.(2.... ANO_Jf _Coz __ _s-1_t2._l_c,~---~'!\o'l __..n :tt.s_~Jl-'-. --------------------------------------
_________ )L_, DtrH 'q_ _1-_cJfZ_ge.tJi_L,_Y-~- ------···---------------- --------
: i
i' li --------ll, ,--- . -- --·-- . - -------------------------- ·-----------------------~--------
_____________ :L.f'l_C_()_t-)_i_IS, ___ _I"::_~·-N~ frY.)~afPo_W_\!-OSJ~'i.SS __ ~':IwJ:if...;_~--'W'z __ V.IS'1'1W __ :(tfi __ ~1itJ_i,. __
I' - '
I j
-------- .. liA _ t..JJ1>16~L o~ .111'1A.'L':._, ___ }jJ(..P_VS __ Gt_'1 _ fl__!ioo 0 ___ WI L.O'UW~:!:LS!l.t.___~ cluQ_
-----i-fW.u2.«t. ~s:L Vo:tCDowr-) __ s:,3 7::1 -:IT_ Do.tstJ~_'29.-r.ttr._Ju6L __ __ __
• ___ __.. f ---~&1 l6u. &1?...1;)~ )- -------------- -- - ·- - ·- -- . - - - -· -- ----- - .. - --- ------- --- ------------
-~~1 ~~-t~: ~.~~~ ~~~-\~rt..~ J ~ \~~~ ~~v.\ Mw.~~eA
~v~ 1 7 · "71 \ ·
• \V..e- 1\-erJ_ ~u~ :c.:O"l" ;oJ -\-\u ~·~\ \ ·,~ tR.. -\,o 'l>t_,J,_. \\ \1.1~ ..\\-~
~.f.~-t-W-;0 ._) 1 t,O.I \ I \)JI).k 1).>1~ w.U St. ~tJ,~ ~'-"'~ >'t~t.t:..J I~ ;...;~o..J JJ
o~«. iUtU.,!~J. v.{,~. ~ Il~ ~ ~~ \Ar,.t. .
• .f\ \.(ch~ t.t't-" w,\J.u...t't',~. 1\-\t.t.t., l).f.!; J.~ ev..ktJt,~lft,
00...\] "'"t e.\..w_ O.t~oiA.lltS 1 ~o~- w.o\.ri.i~J t.u~ * \~~o~ l~e..-.
• ~ • Q... · 1.1\ 'J .VI il' ~~' 9 ~oo~ J.~~o~t>.\~.J (J • 1~l ~li'A \'v\.u l.rl.-
Governor Cec11 Hndrus
Stat er.ouse
boise. idaho 83720
D~~r· Governor ~ndrus,
[I()'/ .1
1 have beey-, a
Adm i y-, i strati c··n.
Ser,ator f'rlcCl ur~e
fan of yours for years, ever
1 am surprised that you
ldat1o FoY'est May-,agemer-.t Act.
si r,ce the gerw.edy
support tt1e S.37l
Our wilderness here in Idaho is in enough Jeopardy wi·th out
tur ... r-.ir-•g c•ver the cor-.trols tee the Fc•rest Service to mar ... k
boundaries for us. Also this bill is an attempt to re--deflne the
existing water-right law thus reducing the protect1on we now have
under the present law.
~)lease char-,ge vc•ur positic•r, C•Y• this bill. We lYJ ldano ·need
responsible leg1~lators who are not go1nq to turn our land and
our water-rights over to the highest bidaer. We onlv have so
much land left and that is go1nq fast~ .JUSt come to Ketcnum and
fir-rd Ctllt!!!!!!!!
S1 Yrcerel v yoLI"r"'S.
Frances P. Crosier
P.U. Box 2434
Ketchum, Idaho 83340
I!CJ '/ :, !
J(A}
Dear Governor Andrus,
'
.I
Box 393
Sun Valley, Idaho
83353
Nov. 19, 1989
I'm writing to you concerning the Idaho Wilderness Bill S371.
I'm very much in favor of wilderness designation for areas of
Idaho. The four million acre bill introduced by Representative
Kostmayer would protect a reasonable amount of wildlands.
S371 has some glaring faults:
1. The proposed acreage is much too small.
2. It has provisions to exempt roads in the area from wilderness
designation. What sort of wilderness will it be with roads
running through it? What sort of precedent will this set for
wilderness areas in the future?
3. It gives the Forest Service the authority to review the
boundaries in seven years and redraw them if it sees fit.
I don't want the Forest Service to be able to do that.
Please withdraw your support from this dreadful bill. Idaho
Wilderness deserves better protection than this. If we can't count
on our own governor, who can we count on?
Yours trulh ,
r~.-u.& {,deL;;~~
Sue Petersen
Governor Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
~~~~~~\E\1]
~O'J 29 i989
}W
OFFICI: OF aovEttNoR
November 23, 1989
Lisa D. Therrell
P.O. Box 104
Grangeville, ID 83530
I am writing to ask that you reconsider your support of s. 371, The Idaho
Forest Management Act. I respect that your efforts towards trying to negotiate
a compromise in order to resolve the issue of wilderness allocation in Idaho.
However, S. 371 is a dangerous precendent-setting piece of legislation. It
erodes the concept of wilderness established by the 1964 Wilderness Act. In
particular I urge that you withdraw your support of the road provision, and
the water right provision. Please help keep Wilderness WILD!
Sincerely,
~Ida ~J/1i1U_:/
Lisa D. Therrell
enclosure
Senator Bradley
u.s. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bradley:
November 23, 1989
Lisa D. Therrell
P.O. Box 104
Grangeville, ID 83530
I am writing in regards to Idaho wilderness legislation. I strongly urge
that you do NOT supportS. 371, and work to prevent its passage.
The Rocky Mountains are a magnificent portion of our national heritage. If
wilderness was to be preserved for the sole purpose of wildland recreation,
we may have enough wilderness already, though we would have to considerably
crowd folks together as more and more wildlands are lost. However there is a
much more important reason to designate wilderness. These wild places are
among the last vestiges of America primeval. We have drastically altered
entire ecosystems across this nation by farming, grazing, mining, logging,
urbanizing, dredging, damming etc ••• Of our precious remaining wild places
we need to seek to preserve these remnant ecosystems, where natural processes
can operate freely. Future generations will thank our foresight rather than
inheriting only the legacy of our greed and short term economic decision
making.
s. 371, the Idaho Forest Management Act, is a travesty to the All-American
tradition of wilderness. The bill ignores wilderness allocation on many
deserving wildlands. In fact, the bill only recommends 1 million acres for
wilderness designation, out of the current 9 million roadless acres. The
bill would give the Forest Service the authority to redraw wilderness
boundaries to exclude areas showing signs of "definable routes of travel".
S. 371 degrades the 1964 Wilderness Act by denying federal reserved water
right for wilderness. Please prevent S. 371 from going to the floor for a
vote. And should it reach the Senate floor, please offer amendments that
would restore the integrity of the wilderness concept, "where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man".
Take it from an Idahoan, four million acres IS NOT TOO MUCH!!!! (H.R. 2213)
The Forest Service may not advocate this much wilderness designation, however
their responsibility has been primarily toward the local timber industry and
not the American people as a whole. It is true that many Idahoans do not
support ANY wilderness designation, due to their vested interests in short
term economic gain. However wilderness designation is NOT what is hurting
the timber industry. The timber companies in the northwest are, in fact,
making record profits. Those employed by the timber industry are bt:!'1 ing,
however, from jobs lost due to mill mechanization, log exports, and more
"eff1Qient" logging systems. Desecrating our water, wildlife, native flora,
and scenery will only solve the problems of a few frustrated individuals.
America has seen gross changes in our economy since we became a nation.
Resource exploitation has been the way of the frontier. We need to be more
forward looking now, and adjust our economy, before every piece of the pie is
gobbled up by greed. Please help protect our stunning natural legacy.
Sincerely,
fi~ '--JI.e ._ ,_,;,
Lisa D. Therrell
cc: Senator James Me Clure
Congressman Richard Stallings
Governor Cecil Andrus
(;., v',. C u// ?/. fl, ci" 7/v.f
sn..re.- Cdf't't-e/ B ldt·
13~;-.r~J :J:: ~~o t 3 ?~o
II j2 r./ r/1
[~~UJJ~UW~fD)
NOV 30 1989
}W
OFFICE OF GOVERNOft
Lu e.- <>-.--LV f f2v ~ ~ J& k

hr~u.-v/y ~ .Pf~r£,'., 7
fo LA.)! J.r r d.., I! ,,.a/ ro ~) o y _;e d&< 1 d> '-'
f..u/ / J tJ+ ~.I. f ~~ ~ c,.d?;. dr- ~ }"~4Y"
J'v p' 4#y ;- r r /).o,~-e; l' hi vr.i"r~J 1')., J 3 ?/
/har· L.v ~ ~ OVY 0 r' IJ .12..r;r. e./.. I' S', Ycl ~.
TrJc.....r/..>w., iS" /~?,...-)-~ /u ;e_~t{o_
p cJ-n.' -, J-e, rrc; }1 l:r ivtdw iry _ J? r-
Tfn'vl./ h~c~t-- of- :eck4.e:ir 0;/J
b ... ~ !y ~d tt..«j ~./ ltj.
~~~~~~~[OJ
NOV 30 1989
OFFICE OF GOVERNOft
?h'-"1A ,{ d(A
N CJT n:~ !.$.. ~;;,~~l;
S' It_.~ T -0 h. .... v...,~>
711'o No /,/e... 19v~
/1/l /;J' .1' /P;, f!-t't ir ~ - 113 'Is-
The Honorable Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
3964 Yorktown Way
Boise, Idaho 83706
November 28, 1989
I have written to a number U.S. Senators to express my objections to S. 371,
the Idaho Forest Management Act, introduced by Senator McClure. The bill is a
terrible compromise on behalf of those sectors which seek economic gain from
Idaho's priceless wildlands. In my letter I enumeratered several objection­able
provisions of S. 371, which I am sure you recognize:
The bill defines any parallel track as a road, and then cuts these
"roads" out of the wilderness it designates. Some of these roads are
the traces of the pioneers of long ago; others reflect the intrusion of
off-road-vehicles from which the land should be protected. I do not
pretend to understand the complexities surrounding the road provisions
in this bill.
The provision for mandated timber harvest for the Bonners Ferry Diotrict
and Panhandle National Forest has no place in any legislation to desig­nate
wilderness.
"Special Management Area" prov1s1ons are unnecesoary and would limit
public involvement in decision-making about public lands. I particu­larly
dislike provisions for off-road-vehicle use in the Smokies and the
possibility of accelerated timber harvest in some areas.
Grazing provisions would eliminate the Forest Service's discretion to
close off r-parian areas and otherwise protect the land from over­grazing.
This is another attempt to enhance the economic advantage for
a few by destroying Idaho's real treasure, our vast and wonderful
wildlands.
Inst~ed of McClure':! bi 11, ! ~dvocet·e support f';)r the Idaho Wi !derne5s Act,
H.R. 2213, introduced by Representative Kostmayer. It is not surprisin& to me
that the real ldaho Wilderness Act is proposed by an "Easterner". I am a
transplant myself, who came to Idaho to be close to the wilderness which is a
national treasure. l respectfully request your support for the real Idaho
Wilderness Act and disassociation with S. 371.
Sincerely,
c?(~D.~
LINDA D. HAGEDORN
~~@~~W~IDJ
NOV 281989
\W
OFFIW; ._h OV\ \ o..vJ). ....::.·, \\
:tel baeis uaile protec~ elk habitat
and water quality. We also included the Vanderbilt area
because we felt that the Dolly Varden fishery would best be
cf>
protected ~RQax wilderness.
I understand the concern and uncertainty felt by those who
have jobs that depend on a continued timber harvests from
our national forests. Senator McClure and I took the
best approach possible to protect the existing timber
jobs. Without a wilderness bil~many of the now roadless
areas will remain roadless until lengthy litigation takes
place. With this in mind,~t~ter to find a
compromise now ~to put so much of the timber
industry in jeopardy by not addressing the wilderness issue.
Senator ~- McClure ~? continued to push for release language
that will provide more certainty to the lands released for
I am hopeful that more progress on this
can be made on the Senate floor.
I believe the people of Idaho want the wilderness issue
resolved. It has divided our citizens for too long.
With a balanced and reasonable resolution to the wilderness
issu;;we can get about the business of
national forests for the best multiple
With best regards,
Sincerely
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
managing all our
use for all.
October 4, 1989
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Karl Bierhaus
Rt. 1 Box 76-C
Pomeroy, WA 99347
-- .· ..
\W
I am concerned about the proposal currently pending in Congress (S-371)
which would add 1.4 Million acres of new wilderness to the 4 Million acres
of Wilderness and include an additional 600,000 acres of so-called Special
Management Areas.
I can see no good reason for including the Vanderbilt area in the
Mallard-Larkins Wilderness proposal. Fish and Wildlife concerns have
already been addressed in the cooperative agreement worked out between
the Forest Service, Idaho Fish and Game Department and the forest
industry. That agreement will assure both timber and wildlife will be
provided.
The only justification for another Wilderness in Idaho, I believe, is
the inclusion of a strong provision which releases all remaining
roadless areas for full multiple-use and eliminates continuing legal
hassles over the implementation of forest plans. The current language
in S-371 will not accomplish that.
Sincerely,
Karl Bierhaus
KB/mmb
CC: Senator James McClure
Senator Steve Symms
-
.·--
-- . ·-
..
/W
IW
OFFICE; or· GOVERNOft
L.lsHtJIAT
woul.ct "Ri~fi.Nt:. 1)l c tviAtH~ffi. ( m6AI'lLI\I6- CF f.ltM-1\llN(.,- ~Oti'JG-1"Thlc Wlt.()~I\Jf-~ AC:! ~
i)J()-c- Woul.l) cSIW~ ~ W~LCR. 1::.\~~
"i)..~'r wool£> txcLuD~ -n.tt- ~uE.u.c. ~Ro~ fuu... PAIU"Lc.t 9P.Tlcu.-1) rRd.Jd)t- "TWO \/ttl-lC.U C;3 ~~ W L)..lt Wl:YLit; C.l.OUtlJ ~
I
11\~t."< ()XIUI..I) CM.\Sc· ~WII.\ (}lt fNlilolur"' c l'tl C0 !'M4\PI:JL'rl e:5 PRaJ>oc:nN~
•
l C!:lt.f( 'BE:u\lf; lTo PAt+o_..
W tt..CJ L'UA HO,
t>(.b::>.~t: 1 i>Uill.lc.l.'1 Mru:r A C.L-otW" ~a .. cHV\. SC"-lf:\"WR Mc.C.UJW f'c.ll6SI f'AAI.JA6f~ ~t..A1b4"o
f'"on. 114E f'u11JII.C. cF lC4~ FaUll OlV f I..A.SilJ I Wl"(J U\1'65 -
rd(t. iWf SC,tMlc.l.. cF ~tU:WI t S ms.N~ M....tl !Olll+t)
'"i)l 1: c, t+t.t-loot J IJ 'FoR N\. (,
IHA~K. !:::.t\1 C•i"!
'if::.' \I'JJ.-CiE7'r"·nL'S:!.1 :t s :::.­~
~ts such as a letter ~rom A~ Ranger Dis- ber cutting targets Andrus and McClure propose, a
trict off!~ ~ that the timber cuttillg target was McClure spokesman said there are those who cannot live
"unreaaistically high for the fll'S! decade due to the num- without them. ·
ber of drainages that exceed sediment lewis."
In another section of the group's reply, the Wallitce "A lot ofmillworlcers up arowid Bonnen Ferry couldn't
District Ranger is quoted as writing in a Feb. 6, 1984, li¥e withoot it," said Palmer. "This is a very clcir-Cut
letter that foresters on the ground found much lllSS mature · situation where you had a ~-"
timber than had been estimated by regional planners. . . . The other gRlUf1'l taking part in the appeal include the
Osborn praised the Forest Service for opening its ldabo Ccoserwtion League and associated local cbapten;
records to the public for review. He praised the agency for the ldabo Wildlife Federation; InlaDd Northwest Wildlife
opposing the guaranteed timbec sale provisions of a wilder- Council; Inland Empire Backcountry Horsemen; W~­ness
bill written by ldabo Gov. Cecil Andrus and Sen. Jim ton Natiw Plant Society; The Idalio Spoi tsmcll's Coati·
McClure, R-Idabo. . . ·lion; The Sierra Club; The Audubon Society; Selkirk·
McClure is seeking passage of the bill in the U.S. Sen- Priest Basin Association and the National Wildlife
ate this fall with language that would guarantee allowable Federation.
I
- ,_)'
IW
,_ I
1 (c-n.o--ud-4 Ce-c-ce: ~??u-~
1\JJ
_J~/~ _/~ cc.- ~{7rth?U/ _fc~~ -;;n~
_, /-0'.;("- u~~-7"1.f&7t-c/ _,:v-o:1 . " /Z:e ;J c>-e~z.crc:- ctf'
J,A(,·/f-e-r J C _1J..e/nc~o ./~ cf4n;J-
.-~ ~tV..b, ~ f'-CVI -Y --Jl~ ,:)~~ c:Y a-pz.. --t~cc~;r
sc:J_ c:e~ >J-r.:;r~:r0-- "'~~" cz:.a7 _/u;., (?/;?U.-nz.-?2£4.4- -v-c- ~/ - ~~...- -~ ~r
/w~>d~-
cY-~ c.L'c..-u-~ J _/uu.-e v-rz.&-· --?~ ~7~1
/U/71"-&?z-~ Zp~~>-rW .;j'J?.c ~J o-?~ _/:~"' / . -r""/
~ _c/V'.,?U~;>;.If. Cref!k ~ .-Ill
..-4" FOREST WILDERNESS .-11
.-11
A
.. --+ . u ~
Sept. 13, 1989
Hon. Cecil D. Andrus
Governor of Idaho
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Gov. Andrus:
friends of Lime Creel(
ant£ tlie SoUier Mountains
746 Santa Paula Court
Boise, Idaho 83712
Upon several occasions you and Sen. McClure have assured me publicly,
personally, and through your aides that the special mangement language for
the Lime Creek and Smoky Mountains would be corrected to reflect your
original intent in the final version of the Idaho Forest Management Act.
I hope it is not too late to accomplish that. S.2055 last year and now
S.371 were both printed with the deficient wording.
I am concerned that in the push to get the bill through the Senate this
year, the special management direction for Lime Creek and the Smokys will
be forgotten. I would hate to see that happen because I think your overall
concept for the area .has great merit. It would make more permanent the
temporary protection we achieved in our settlement with the Sawtooth Na­tional
Forest earlier this year.
In addition to prohibiting logging, mining, and road building, as affirmed
at your June 1988 news conference, it might be good to state the fish and
game habitat enhancement and recreational purposes of the area's special
management.
It may interest you to know that the draft Sawtooth National Forest travel
plan just out reflects an informal agreement between trail bikers and
friends of Lime Creek to close the Beaver Creek trails on Iron Mountain to
motor vehicles. Those are the primary horse and hiker routes to Heart
Lake.
Such arrangements also should be possible in the Smokys if we could just
get some of the less strident voices on both sides to talk with each other.
Thanks again for your help in protecting Lime Creek.
Per e. G/.to'S> s
lt2 7 At/l(...l4'7 Au.
LEw ts·•~ .,J .L D K-:5 S"D1
Go \J6'7..tV <> '\.. Cc:rcH.. A,.vo~"'.S
S'IA T~ CA- f ITJL
EJts& rD
" l
L\Nf
OF I
.DtrS\6 ~Vq'T/.N 6 S€GM&JV·iJ Df ftvd (ALIP<>t1Ah-.t A;J-"t.Tn C\:l ~3 r ~/IJ~A.J
AS WiLO 1\rJ SC&-1V1-" yo.J"- /l.ol.f
of- 'yoJ~ f./\)1 1tc.71vAJ.s T -v,q...s i)tSJtPf:>-... ,,r;~~ 7v t'{.641J
/
HBtt'f4 5cSr-~A"tt"\ ;4 c.. ClvAJ- D~FI 4 L? ILL j)t;,s 16 rJ.tJit,..;,
/;) I'-1H .. ll""' ..AC...tt.6-.f o~ t.VIlD&~.-v\?-SJ lf.l..sT~o o? 'S:U~f'JI)T/AJc
C~ O,.Jt>.'\.c.s'JM4J"" P8- i6-A f1-/ o ~".r.,.r..-_._ o, r- A-.t.; qc:· .•- -I ', - __ aI
J\..tlll 10-.) "}C."\..19- ~iLl. _)1M S.; 1.d 'YthJII/6
H£4-<1~ ALL o\.z c~6 4.t2..()u,...,&N'IJ orJ ~ (jltf
StJ}~J 5.> :J wo-J c..,-
I r IX> S1 N C.C::"\tTl Y ..ftDI' ..,, )oJ Wrll..
?t:lc.tctrJc ?&rrt!-/\ k.._.,st A-14Yt"""-
1
J
v ..